Philobiblon

Perhaps I’ve become more critical over the years, or perhaps newspapers have got worse – probably it is a bit of both – but increasingly I read newspaper articles, get to the end, and ask, what? What evidence have you got to support the contention you’ve made here? Why is the paragraph that debunks the whole story (if it is there at all) buried in the depths of the article? (Well I know why, but why was the reporter allowed to get away with it?)

Two examples. They’re from the Guardian and Observer, probably the least worst in their respective markets in this regard, but nonetheless, there they are, on their websites.

Case One

Today there’s a piece about teenage self-harm. The headline reads: “Sense of failure: the scale of teenage self-harm. Study shows one in five girls has wounded herself. ‘Must-have’ culture brings feelings of inadequacy”. And that’s probably all a majority of readers will look at, and go away with the common message: “society is going to hell”.

But I read on. And an alarm flag went up in paragraph two. “A survey published today by The Priory, which specialises in treating mental health problems and addictions…” A hunt through the rest of the story provides no more details about who conducted the survey – a university department, or even survey company, or an employee of The Priory. Mmmmm … a survey company or employee finds that there’s much more need for services of the company that commissioned it to do the survey. (Because had there been a university it would surely have been mentioned to bolster the story.) And this is the whole foundation for the story. Bit of a worry …

Next: Applied to the general population, survey means more than 1 million British adolescents have considered self-harm and more than 800,000 (13%) actually inflicted injuries on themselves. But was this survey representative of the general population? No data provided, but I have a funny suspicion that it will have been conducted in London and environs, probably amid middle-class kids – the ones likely to end up at The Priory … hardly representative of a whole country. Interesting too, that there is no attribution for who is making the extrapolation.

… A national inquiry into the prevalence of self-harm among British teenagers by the Mental Health Foundation and the Camelot Foundation is due to report next year. That, hopefully, will have proper methodology, and will be the study this story should be waiting for.

…According to Childline, the numbers of youngsters calling its helpline about self-harm has risen by 20% in the last 10 years, with a marked increase – 30% – this year. Has it increased services in that time, has it done more to encourage children to ring, has the issue got more publicity? Does this figure mean anything at all? (Except that the charity – probably with good intentions, wants more money?)

… According to Dr Griffiths, the increased reports of self-harm may also be a reflection of contemporary society and the media, with their emphasis on fame, celebrity and “instant gratification”. I do like that “may”.

Finally, the last paragraph .. According to The Priory, most self-harming is symbolic – typically involving small cuts that do not draw blood and are invisible to teachers and parents. The practice releases natural opioids which can be “incredibly addictive”. So after we’ve all been having lurid images of wrists dripping blood and attempted suicide, we get small scratches. If, and it is a big if, we’ve read to the last paragraph.

So the one-sentence summary – Commercial company commissions survey that finds a greater need for its services. A bit weaker than the original, but more accurate.

Case 2
In the Observer, Why the have-it-all woman has decided she doesn’t want it all. The sub-head reads: “As a new generation of mothers seeks to change the balance between work and home, Tessa Jowell calls for a debate on how we all live”. And there’s a “politics” section logo.

Paragraph two: “But now, the Having All It All generation are giving way to the Actually, I Don’t Want It All – or at least, Not All At The Same Time generation. And their champion comes from a somewhat unusual quarter. The government’s minister for women declares today that modern women are increasingly unwilling to bear the stress of trying to do everything at once – and calls on men to share more of the responsibilities at home.”

So goes the whole story. The basic premise here is “we are responding to a fundamental change in what women want”. But, wait a minute, where is the evidence that this has changed – maybe some statistics on workforce participation, some solid social science survey, hell, even a well-conducted “pop” survey?

None, nada, not a word. The whole story is built on a premise – a very large premise – that it makes no attempt to justify or back up.

But it is worse than that: More than half of British women are currently working in a job for which they are overqualified, often because domestic responsibilities leave them too little time or energy to pursue more senior positions. “Often” – what does that mean? I could equally say – and would say – “often” women are stalled in their jobs because of male prejudice and discrimination, “often” all workers, men and women, are stalled in their careers for all sorts of reasons – from their boss not liking them to their inability to move location because of their children’s schooling …

Now I don’t want to pick on these two particular journalists – they are only cogs in the wheel, and the stories products of the huge pressure to produce great headlines. But such a pity those headlines so often have no solid foundation whatsoever, and yet these are what give readers their view of the world, that guides their votes and their actions.

I now have the lovely Sunday evening choice – the huge pile of ironing, or the overdue tax return …

Actually have to do both, but which first?

My 19th-century “blogger” is today musing on the theatre, and particularly the great actresses and actors she has seen on the London stage. Her considered favourite in terms of skill is Mrs Siddons:

I can hardly conceive anything finer than the expression which Mrs. Siddons gave to the simple reply, ‘A deed without a name.’ [in the witches scene in Macbeth] It seemed full of all the guilty dread belonging to witchcraft; and it is just this idea of guilt which seems to be so difficult to convey to our minds, which are engrossed with the folly of the whole thing that we not recollect it was a sin.

But Miss Williams Wynn isn’t above a bit of gossip, referring to the famous love affair of Miss Farren, which was recently turned into fiction:
“I recollect (not the admirable acting in the famous screen scene but) the circumstance of seeing Lord Derby leaving his private box to creep to her behind the scene; and, of course, we all looked with impatience for the discovery, hoping the screen would fall a little too soon, and show to the audience Lord Derby as well as Lady Teazle.”

Also making an appearance are Madame de Stael, Miss O’Neill, Kemble and Talma. And the editor’s note is interesting. Writing in the 1850s, he feels compelled to apologise for the seriousness with which Miss Williams Wynn takes her theatre. Obviously a respectable lady writing respectfully about actresses was something he had problems with.

The best of the British and Irish blogosphere over the past week, as nominated by their peers ….

Starting with the high-tech end, Tim Ireland on Bloggerheads has created a presentation on the Iraq war by Leo Blair, aged five. (Not for the faint of heart or delicate of sensibility, but a powerful way to get the message across. Likely to be very slow on dial-up.)

But what was the issue of the week that really got everyone in the mood for satire? Two great posts with a similar view have the answer: Angry Chimp finds himself finds himself drinking “Unionist kneecap” and Old Spice in the early hours, while Diamond Geezer finds there’s nothing like 7am Happy Hour – a yard of ale only £1.99.

Then, in the “we really should notice this” category – Antonia’s Blog explains why local government reform really matters. Pay attention down the back and click – it really is an account of astonishing stupidity in bureaucracy, I promise.

Now since the roundup is visiting a blog that is, above all other categories, feminist, I’m going to privilege a few women bloggers here, at the top of the roundup, with an accompanying question to readers: how many women bloggers have YOU got on your blogroll?

Two blows to the legal protection from rape this week – the survey of public attitudes and the later dismissal of a case because the victim was drunk – have got a lot of people, me included, hot under the collar. But perhaps it is Emma on Gendergeek who made the point best, in her message to the Great British Public. Volsunga explains just how deep-seated the problem is, and Laurelin of Laurelin in the Rain finds Neanderthal views are all too common. (And Pickled Politics, providing a roundup of the Anglo-Asian blogosphere, points to a similar problem with a judge in India.

Kate on the Cruella-blog wonders why the NHS is so keen to promote cosmetic surgery, when it is so much more dangerous than unprotected sex.

Then to one of my longtime favourites: Greenfairydotcom is pursued by the Bridezilla monster, on a visit to Tottenham Court Road. (Glad she’s reported back, so I won’t have to go near it, even for satiric purposes.) Clare, on Boob Pencil, has meanwhile been having a very bad night in Manchester. Ikea comes into the story, and a panther.

On Early Modern Notes, Sharon Howard (in my view Britain’s pre-eminent history blogger – and one of the earliest) has found a serious case of medical malpractice.

Finally in this section, a test to see how broadminded you really are: Creepy Lesbo muses on the flavours of ‘girl custard'”. (If you’re easily offended don’t follow the link – and if you do, don’t complain you weren’t warned.)

Turning back to politics, Jonathan Calder on Liberal England looks at the Liberal Democrats’ problem, now that the Tories have realised Blair is a “right-wing polemicist” after their own heart. The Sharpner examines how Labour got to this point.

So this seems a good place to point to a Blairwatch campaign: Will you – yes you, the blogger, pay the price of freedom? Pledges have been made.

Politicalog – Fighting the Spin concludes Gordon Brown has cost us all £40bn, plus interest, plus inflation. Still on economics Tim Worstall, who can get a nomination this week, does the analysis on Jonathan Freedland’s “class envy”.

Then an unusual take on an endlessly debated aspect of the Tory leadership contest – if you can call it a contest – PooterGeek “outs” some unexpected Old Etonians.

On other domestic issues, The Mad Musings of Me considers social damage caused by the niqab. The Liberty Cadre questions the no operation if you are too fat” rule in east Suffolk.

Militant Moderate fondly remembers George Best. Blood and Treasure, however, offers an unappreciation of a wife-beater and man who lived “like a swine” and Cynical Bastard says all the fuss has a lot to do with men of a certain age in the ‘meeja’. Coffee and PC, meanwhile, suggests why not add some extra detail in the deathbed reports, then make a best-selling compilation: Best, Arafat, Diana and the Pope. (Not to be missed.) Finally, wrapping up this section, Anthony on The Filter combines the Best and 24-hour drinking stories, with a manifesto putting the case for drinking.

Then a bit of blogging navel-gazing: The Jarndyce Blog has been disillusioned by bloggers’ response to the chance of “fame”.

But the mainstream media isn’t getting off lightly – Rachel from North London comments on The Sun’s treatment of a London bombing victim. (She speaks with the authority of one who was there herself.) And Gnus of the World (great title) deconstructs a Guardian non-story based on a dodgy survey about de-caff coffee. (The post’s language is full-strength, BTW.)

Providing some musical accompaniment, Edward on One More Cup of Coffee reviews Bob Dylan concert at Brixton. (Which reminds me of a recent conversation with a twentyish security guard: “that old pop bloke”, he said, “what’s ‘is name …” Happens to us all.) Then, I don’t think I’m being offensive in saying this, to the other end of the music business, a gig in Nottingham beautifully reviewed by Mike on Troubled Diva.

More on y’arts, Matthew on A Very Clever and Exciting Place for Words to Live gives the letter B a complete check-up. And I’m going to use the host’s privilege of one link to point to my “other” blog, My London Your London, a review of a fascinating exhibition that gets behind British fashion to those who’ve given their life to it. But they’re not the usual suspects.

Turning international, The Religious Policeman has a typically irreverent but penetrating look at blood money and executions in Saudi Arabia.

Chase Me, Ladies, I’m the Cavalry has found some surprising information about Arnie, who might just have been a bit surprised in Rio himself.

Perfect.co.uk opens a heated debate about the Yugoslav conflicts. Then Richard on How This Old Brit Sees It reports on the scandal of chemical testing on unprotected children in the US.

Adloyada finds a Guardian review reveals “Blair’s Middle East envoy is really a representative of the Prime Minister of Israel”.

Just across the Channel, North Sea Diaries sets out the tough life of a French train driver – NOT. (It does sound like a good gig.)

And is it time for space archaeology? Alun on Ancient Science and the Science of Ancient Things meets the man who wants to preserve Mir.

This is a one-time, special edition visit of the Britblog Round to Philobiblon; other, and future, editions can/will be seen on Tim Worstall’s blog.

Thank you to everyone who sent in nominations. Hope to see you around again soon.

I’m putting this up a little early, so if you’ve rushed in an up-to-the-deadline, post-11am nomination, I’ll add a special supplement here around 2pm.

UPDATE: And the final nominee, who gets to sit down in the front row, is The Road to Euro Serfdom, who is finding the EU is targeting baby hedgehogs.

Many newspapers put out a “best of the year” compendium, a book usually released just in time for the Christmas market. So it is a mark of the growing maturity of the blogosphere that this year the British component has its first such compilation, 2005: Blogged. Edited by Tim Worstall, of the eponymous blog (you’ll often have seen it referenced here), it covers from November 2004 to October this year, an eventful enough period that covers the US election, the London bombings and even a royal wedding.

So how does it stack up? Is the best of the British blogosphere starting to seriously rival the traditional media outlets in quality of information, analysis and writing? I decided to put 2005: Blogged to the test, and a tough test, comparing it to The Bedside Years: The Best Writing from the Guardian 1951-2000.

There are some areas in which, you might be surprised to hear, the blogosphere wins out – offers something the Guardian compilation does not.

The blogosphere doesn’t in general, have to worry about offending “the general public” – at least not any part of it that might by a particular newspaper. The preparedness to offend and not care, gives the blogosphere an edge over newspapers in the areas of satire and scathing comment. On the royal wedding, Mugged by Reality’s headline is: “Embarrassing, irrelevant, inbred, half-witted Greco-Germanic anachronism to wed hideous, overprivileged, idle-rich moose.” Even Julie Burchill might have trouble getting that past an editor.

Then there’s a particular segment of the blogosphere that gives insider views you’d be unlikely to find in a newspaper; these are not journalists or public figures, but people, often after decades in a field of business, who can bluntly talk about what it is _really_ like. So, Grumpy Old Bookman explains how winning the Man Booker Prize is absurd, random, and utterly unfair. I doubt you’d ever see this article in a newspaper; editors have too much invested in being part of the literary world to so expose it.

Some of the these bloggers are, like the Bookman, semi-retired; others are deeply pseudonymous, and talk about their day job with rare honesty, such as the magistrate who writes The Law West of Ealing Broadway. There’s a particularly fine post in the compilation in which he writes what he’d really like to say to some defendants: “Look, you stupid git. If you had been weating the [seat]belt the police would have left you alone. There is no specific offence of acting like a prat, but if there were you would be guilty of it.”

Moving on to my second category, there are areas in which the writing of the blogosphere matches the quality of that of the Guardian compilation. Greenfairydotdotcom’s account of going home for Christmas is quite the equal of Jill Tweedie’s correspondence from January 1981 in which her Martha, “a striving woman of mature years,” writes to her radical younger friend. (In all other case I’ve just linked to the general blog – you’re meant to go out and but the book remember – but I’ll make an exception in this case and send you straight to the post. Of course we’ve all got horrible family Christmas stories, but what makes this work is the economy of language and the preparedness to show, rather than tell. And I’m a Tweedie fan.)

The collection indicates that the blogsphere is undoubtedly patchier in coverage than in newspapers in general, but the quality of political, business and social analysis in Blogged:2005 stands up well against the Guardian’s. The Yorkshire’s Ranter analysis of the final fall of Rover matches rather nicely with Stanley Reynolds’s “The Museum of the Horrifying Example”, about 1984, post-industrial Liverpool. Chicken Yoghurt’s analysis – and critique – of Live 8 matches up entirely to Normal Shrapnel writing up the “Lady Chatterley” debate in the Lords in 1960-1.

And on the big news – US elections, terrorist attacks, and similar – while straight news coverage might be patchy, the items published in 2005: Blogged again match up. Antoine Clarke’s Election Watch (no longer up) — Correction, to be found here — dissects the (unintended) consequences of the Guardian’s campaign on Clark County. And on the London bombing, there are examples of the on-the-spot, “live” blogging that the Net does so well.

> What’s missing, in comparing the two collections? Oddly enough there’s little or no writing about television, and film – supposedly that great centre of popular culture – in Blogged:2005, while the Guardian collection features the ever-green Nancy Banks–Smith and Julie Burchill. Maybe bloggers are too busy blogging to watch the Box? (I know that it was the final straw that made me get rid of mine.)

There’s also little sport. Maybe that’s such a specialised sphere of the blogosphere that it hasn’t mixed with the rest – there must be huge numbers of fanblogs out there. (To check I just put “Manchester United” and “blog” into Google and got 1.46 million hits.)

International travel and international politics are also thinly covered. No doubt this is in part due to the focus of the collection on Britain, but there are Britons out there blogging on these topics (think of all those VSO volunteers) – but probably, it must be admitted, not with the extensive sort of coverage you’d get out of the Guardian. (Honourable mention, however, to Black Triangle for a lovely little North Korean snippet.)

So, perhaps still some growing to do, but the blogosphere, in age a toddler, isn’t doing too badly when stacked up against the full-grown adults of the “big” media. But it seems already to have acquired some of its bad habits. In the Guardian collection (perhaps not surprising since it starts in the Fifties), less than 5 per cent of the writing is by women. And I doubt 2005: Blogged achieves a much higher percentage. Something for the editor to work on next year …

Declaration of interest: I have an entry in the compilation. It is my review, well account really, of a book about chess queens. Not what I’d regard as my finest post, but as always in these things, it is a question of “the mix” – something that also explains a lot of newspaper stories. So maybe we’re more like “them” than we’d like to think.

The Britblog roundup is visiting Philobiblon tomorrow, for one week only. Nominations must be in by about noon tomorrow. (ETA of the roundup about 2pm.)

Politics, arts, annoying personal habits of your nearest and dearest – whatever your personal passion this week, tell the blogging community about it. As usual, send your nominations – of your own or other’s posts – to britblog AT gmail DOT com.

A nice little crop is sitting there already, but more will be very welcome!