Well, it's now been two weeks since Blackburn MP Jack Straw (the former Foreign Secretary and current Leader of the House Of Commons) penned his now-infamous column regarding the wearing of veils ( niqab ) by women adhering to a certain interpretation of the tenets of Islam. Perhaps surprisingly and perhaps not, the debate is still rumbling unabated .

In the past fortnight, we've had stories of teachers suspended for wearing the niqab and British Airways workers sent home for wearing the cross ; We've had claim and counter-claim, windbaggery of all hues, pompous opinion-mongering from every conceivable angle and the capitalisation thereon so, seeing as everyone's making fat-headed comments on this, one more seems like a grain of sand on a beach of indignance.

This issue is political dynamite precisely because you can spin it to touch on any of a number of "great issues" troubling the world today that you might be keen to debate. If you want to talk about immigration, you can use it to that end; the war on terror likewise; ditto the debates on religion and secularity; the issues of spin and political expediency also; the cynicism and power of the media; the rights of individuals versus those of society; the power of the state etcetera etcetera ... It's a blow-hard's charter. Party on, Garth!

I've read and listened to these debates in a state oscillating between those of cynical, misanthropic stoicism, detached analysis and livid bluster. Billy Connolly used to do a routine about the F-word, stating how all his portable radios ended-up "furry" as they became "pebble-dashed with muesli" from reacting to broadcast fatuity: " FFfffucking ... Bwarstar ... Bllloody ... " etc. This week, I know what he means.

Firstly, there's the natural frustration that this issue is still occupying a disproportionate share of the nation's media bandwidth; it's not that it isn't worth discussing, but it's been something akin to a DDOS attack at times. Secondly, there is the disheartenment felt when, yet again , someone hijacks the issue to talk about something related, but not the issue being discussed. Thirdly, there is just bad logic; Clifford Longley, on this week's Moral Maze [ Real Audio which, like messages in Mission Impossible, will self destruct after one week] rather sneeringly referred to the reaction as being to do with a rising tide of "aggressive secularism". How any religious adherent who doesn't secretly harbour dreams of theocracy could ever be against a strand of robustly-defended secularity is beyond me; it's "aggressive anti-theism " you need to be worried about, bro'.

At its core, the issue has only ever really been about the collision of two noble but only semi-enshrined liberties: The right to wear what one likes versus the right to interact with other people how one wishes (both within "reasonable" limits: The "wearing" of automatic weapons is frowned upon, as is having people interacting with your fists etc.).

I hate suits. One of the few times I've agreed whole-heartedly with Tony Blair was when he spoke wearily of "the tyranny of the tie". Fortunately, I often work from home, which means that you'll frequently find me shoe-less, unshaven and wearing baggy jeans (in various states of shabbiness) and a sweatshirt. I don't expect to be able to get away with such louche couture in the office, however. Likewise, I'm sure my line manager would rather accept the delusion that I'm up at 5:30am, dressed with militarily crisp cleanliness and working diligently for the greater corporate good.

These trivial examples hide a serious point. The right to wear what we want is only a "soft" right as is, equally, the right to deal with people on our own terms. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face etc. The issue becomes complicated, however, when public money and services get involved. My bank and my employer can largely choose the terms upon which they wish to deal with their customers and employees, but there is no consumer market in governments, although money is taken for services rendered just the same. This is when these vague types of right seem to become overbearingly important.

When the French debated the wearing of the hijab in schools a couple of years ago, we watched with fascination as a French minister told Jeremy Paxman that the idea of children wearing the hijab " is a kind of violence to us ". France is perhaps the most avowedly secular society in the world; their organisational departements are the result of a rational division process (much as it also served to disintegrate feudal loyalties); the metric system was originally a french product and yet they see no inconsistency in declaring the wearing of the hijab "a kind of violence". One could debate for hours what that comment meant, but I think most people can understand it in a socialist (with a small 's') context. I'd remind you that they were talking about schoolchildren , not the wider cultural liberties. Despite being so avowedly secular, religion of many stripes flourishes in France, especially in the south.

When I read Jack Straw's original article (linked above), I remember wondering what the fuss was about. He is well within his rights to ask, and his constituents are well within their rights to refuse. The reaction to the whole affair, though, speaks of a country ill-at-ease with its cultural priorities. Nothing in our laws or cultural heritage justify either the bloviant accusations of racism aimed at Mr. Straw or accusations of militancy, terrorism and fanatical intransigence directed towards the niqab-wearers. Taking a leaf out of Mr. Sartre's book, what we have here is a situation where the crime is actually a failure to choose ; a dithering hope that things will sort themselves out in the wash without society-level proclamations of principle.

We don't do society-level proclamations of principle very well in this country; they are something akin to "a kind of violence" to us. We're British. We "muddle through". We find a happy medium. We have "stiff upper lips" and "quiet determination". We drink tea. Well, that last bit is true, at least. We are a secular nation, albeit one with an official religion. We are a democracy, albeit one with a sitting monarch. We believe in freedom of the press, but doubt the public value of what they print, We have over a thousand years of law and heritage, but no constitution. It's a compromise. It's a mish mash. It's a hack. It's a mess. It kind of works, though.

Except when it doesn't.

At the last federal election the Sydney Morning Herald decided to sit on the fence and not endorse Howard or Latham. This raises a couple of questions, should the media be endorsing candidates and if they do should they endorse the leader of a party in a Presidential manner, or local candidates as befitting a parliamentary system? A third question is, should bloggers or alternative media endorse candidates?

The United States is only a couple of weeks from a mid-term Congressional election. Since the states run the elections, they are bundling in Governor's races, local assembly elections, Attorney's General, County elections, referendums, propositions - you name it. The United States is under the grips of a civic fest.

The editorial boards of newspapers are endorsing candidates every second day. I am not sure why an editorial board feels it has that right, morally or ethically; as individuals they have the vote. I am not sure why they feel that their weighted opinion matters. News is like a war film, which must always offer a new corpse, news must always have something new. It is not an empirical form of study, it is a constant series of statements with no guaranteed reflection on truth, integrity, quality or even internal logical consistency.

Which is fine; news is first and foremost an entertainment form. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is nonetheless. News and editorial boards are subject to all the vagaries and pressures of a commercial operation - they will not go against their audience's or customer's opinion.

This was seen greatly during George Bush's roller coaster rating ride which shot up to 80% before dropping to under 40%. The news media mimicked the opinions and prejudices of their audience through this whole period as their customers went from near unanimous support, to increasing dissent and disapproval. As a result the commercial media's opinions are reflections rather than actual opinions.

Consequently, I don't think the media, or editorial boards has any place endorsing candidates. Obviously they have the liberty to do so, and continue to do so, but I question the value of any such endorsement.

Another question is whether collectives; such as newspapers, special interests, unions, etc have a place endorsing candidates. This is a more difficult question as political parties are themselves special interest groups dedicated to endorsing candidates that are electable in sufficient numbers to form government.

Having the backing of special interest groups may be important for a candidate, especially in the area of money, support, warm-bodies for election tasks and other administrative tasks; but I fail to see the value for an individual to make any ballot decision from such an endorsement. I have often viewed the endorsements of this nature with amusement.

Bloggers will be facing a conundrum as they grow in audience and influence. Since bloggers tend to be individuals, rather than special interests of commercial or policy interest, I have less of a problem with bloggers endorsing candidates than newspaper editorial boards.

Yet one of the purposes of the secret ballot is so an individual can have their vote be anonymous; at the time of submitting the ballot and in the future, to avoid any potential retribution - civil or governmental.

I also expect that many bloggers who do endorse candidates, will not do so out of an understanding of the parliamentary system, instead endorsing a Presidential party leader, such as Howard or Beazley, entirely forgetting the parliamentary nature of our system.

My feeling is I don't have a problem with bloggers endorsing candidates as they are individuals; not that I will be doing it. I do have an issue with editorial boards and special interests (outside of political parties running candidates) who do - but not to the extent that I would deny them that liberty.

cam

Mainstream media, and in particular newspapers, have been facing increasing competition from low cost online news and information sources. The old monopoly that the print media had on op-ed articles has been broken by blogs already. The newspapers cannot compete with a medium whose cost matches its production - zero dollars. Newspapers, both print and online, have been trying to keep their viewers through tabloidisation. Cheap sensationalism is a valid marketing method, but not one which produces quality discourse.

When the AWB scandal was developing I argued that the Labor Party should hope that one of the AWB Directors was a cross-dresser . Salacious sex scandals means more people viewing and watching. The media could not pass up such an opportunity to make money.

This appeared in Ramsey's op-ed :

Then there was Thursday's front page of Brisbane's Courier-Mail newspaper, the only metropolitan daily in Kevin Rudd's home state. It used to be a broadsheet newspaper. Last year it was cut down to a racy tabloid. And on Thursday its front page had a strap headline right across the top that read, "Accused torturer attends Howard fund-raiser", and underneath, in five decks of huge type down the centre of the page, "PM HAS/LUNCH/WITH/PORN/KING". Flanking the headline was a photo of Howard on one side and "porn mogul Scott Phillips" on the other side.

Politics has always been a bit tabloidy, but even more so in the modern mass-media environment that is under pressure to survive. Most of the best discussion and commentary has moved online and one of the few things the tabloids have left is sex, celebrity and sensationalism

The current Prime Minister is a relatively boring person in his public persona. This is a result of the character attacks and negative campaigning of politics, but also because the media latches on sensationalism.

Consequently we get politicians who have never had a speeding ticket, and if they have, they are forced to resign for some bizarre reason. Hardly good life experience for a politician . The only ones who seem to survive are those that have had their misdemeanours already shaken out on public stage years and years ago; such as Malcolm Turnball and Peter Garrett.

An interesting study from the US which suggests that American voter interests match Australian voters in wanting policy discussed. The Trends in Australian Political Opinion discovered that 49% of Australian voters use policy to guide who they cast their ballot for.

Ars Technica in discussing how media commentary of politics is the same as sports coverage linked to an article on the Project for Journalistic Excellence which discussed how media coverage was at odds with what people want covered. A Pew Research poll shows that 77% of Americans wanted more coverage of the candidates positions on issues.

From the article:

The press' focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.

All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates' stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.

Supposedly the media should be giving its customers what they want but this suggests that they are not. It is probably why the blogosphere has risen in its ability to explore politics in a more detailed manner. The blogosphere has its echo-chambers of course, but for policy discussion it is far and away superior to the mainstream media.

I dont watch cable news as I have little faith in its quality of news reporting. I was at Dulles airport the other morning waiting for a plane and the monitors were all on CNN. This interview, or mpre accurately, piece of drama, ran as a news item on the morning CNN news. Basically Larry King trolled Jerry Seinfield with an outrageous and erroneous comment and Seinfield reacted emotionally. This is trolling. It is not discourse.

CNN was happy. They 'made' news for themselves in the incestuous manner news organisations do these days. That clip has since run all over the place including the internet. A successful troll. But worthless in terms of information. From a data or discourse viewpoint it is hopeless meta.

This is why modern mainstream media is incapable of reporting correctly. Its methodologies are in opposition to that goal. Modern media does not do discourse.

Politicians have a choice to act morally and with individual conscience; however, it is rare. Caught as they are in-between the gnashing teeth of party discipline, media discipline, populism, and maybe pathological desires for power. Fareed Zakaria blamed too much democracy for that in his book Future of Freedom. Politicians could not act morally or as executive/legislative specialists as they were hemmed in by the demand to be re-elected. Ezra Klein points a finger at the mass media.

This gaffe-hunting makes up a substantial slice of contemporary campaign journalism. It is certainly the part that candidates fear most. And it is poisonous to our polity. You often hear that the media are too liberal or too conservative, too corporate or too effete.

But to politicians, they are something else altogether: too trivializing and too intent on ferreting out moments of humiliation. They rob politicians of their ability to campaign in an honorable or spontaneous way.

Does it? Much political blood is split in ensuring that the whole party or department is 'on-message'; saturating the media with the constant drum of one simple visual or sound bite.

Is that the media's fault? I doubt it.

As politicians extend that now into the civil or public service who have become little more than the political arms of the executive. Same with the supposed apolitical department such as the military. They have been little more than blatant political arms.

Cosgrove during the 'children overboard' affair being a good example. In comparison Patreaus has succeeding managing himself in as apolitical a manner as possible.

What of Zakaria's claim that too much democracy is the cause? A simple response is how about the politicians do their goddamn job they were elected to do. Is it democracy's fault that parties and political leaders govern poorly? Choice ultimately is limited for most voters.

Increasing liberty requires increasing morality for the purpose of individual self-governance. Deniehy argued that man's moral improvement makes this possible and that greater liberty actually drives greater moral expression. Sometimes, however, it is easy to think our politicians are not living up to that moral promise.

The role of the op-edder needs to be put in this context as well. Many whip up outrage, or seeming outrage, for entertainment purposes but have a willing political arm that will act to assuage the furore. This leads to political prosecutions which have little to do with the consistency of the rule of law.

It is mob based persecutions. I don't believe it is a failing of democracy, as this isn't a democratic mob demanding action, it is usually a small lobby group and a few with a long reach in the mass media. It merely a small mob or faction with access to political persuasion through the media.

Fortunately the rule of law is strong enough to resist these demands for burnings at the stake, but representatives are isolated from the electorate and do not need to campaign constantly. They can ignore those that make calls for mob persecution. As a representative they are constitutionally required to act in the public good and not at the beck and call of a violent faction who would make persecution political rather than within the framework of the rule of law.

From the article, quote of a quote:

Investors who followed the advice of analysts who say when to buy and sell shares of brokerage firms and banks lost 17 percent in the past year, twice the decline of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

This is true for political punditry and other talking heads that appear on news and current affairs show. We can say with certainty that mass media is devoluted into entertainment, and no longer provides news, consequently the self-styled and proclaimed specialists are entertainers; not specialists.

I personally don't have a TV and only listen to the radio when a cut CD doesn't load courtesy of DRM. Even then I think the car is on a spanish speaking radio. The internet is my main source of news, and while there is undoubted bias in many sites, enough reading of the different points of view can give an accurate feel for the real issues at hand.