Robert Sharp

Barrister

Author: Robert (Page 182 of 328)

The Long and Short of It

27 April 2010 / / 1 Comment

From The Guardian last week:

“We think this will be the renaissance of the short story,” said novelist Sophia Bartleet, who came up with the idea for Ether Books’s app while desperate for something to read when travelling back and forth to see her ill mother. She believes time-poor commuters, or workers grabbing a 10-minute break, could be tempted into reading a short story here, or a poem or essay there, on their phones.

Well, yes. The only problem is, I saved this article to read later on Instapaper for my iPhone. Combine Instapaper with @LongReads on Twitter, or the new LongForm website, and you have pretty much mirrored the Ether Books model. I worry that this is yet another niche filled by something free.
The longest things I have written on this blog are probably this meditation on Britishness, and this Borgesian theatre review… neither of which are that long at all, really. Writing something longer might be a goal for my thirty-second year, beginning today.

James Brindle archived two years of twitters into a hardback book. Photo by STML

Do Daily Mail Journalists Cry at Night?

23 April 2010 / / 1 Comment

I posted this on Liberal Conspiracy yesterday. Happy to say it got a lot of RTs.
The pathetic and desperate hatchet job on Nick Clegg, by our friends at the Daily Mail, was pretty much instantly rebutted last night, in just 140 characters.

@DougSaunders: British journalism in microcosm: 2002 op-ed by Nick Clegg: http://is.gd/bCESl Resulting Daily Mail front pager tomorrow: http://is.gd/bCETh

Merely linking to the article that was the basis for Tim Shipman’s front-page piece shows the real context, debunks the Mail‘s outrage, and exposes their highly partisan agenda. Iain Dale is right: this will backfire on the Conservatives (regardless of whether they actually had a hand in placing the smears), and further highlight The Slow Death of the British Newspaper As We Know It.
Alongside the online rebuttals and link-sharing, we see the rise of the satirical #hashtag, in this case #NickCleggsFault (seeded by Justin McKeating, I believe), and Chris Applegate has updated his seminal Daily Mail Headline Generator to capture the Zeitgeist:

WILL NICK CLEGG GIVE YOUR HOUSE SWINE FLU?

A few questions present themselves. The first is the obvious perennial: how deep does this sort of ridicule penetrate into the national conversation? Are these jokes just a distraction for a insular blogosphere, the “Twitterati”, or does the meme spread out enough to properly counter the spin being spread by the Mail?
Social marketers will spend all election trying to answer this question… but whatever the level of influence right now, I think it is safe to say that it grows on a daily basis. Meanwhile, the tabloids diminish in stature. This is now a given.
But what I really want to know, is this: What do the journalists at these outlets really think about the satirical attacks on their paper? I can well imagine a bunker mentality affecting the editorial team at the Mail, or the Express, or the Telegraph – these are intense and high-stakes positions, after all.
But does this attitude extend to, say, a young journalist working on the news desk? Or the sub-editors? Or the music reviewers? Or the poor chap (or chapess) who has to moderate all the angry comments!? What do they think when they see the Daily Mail Headline Generator and the #NickCleggsFault hastag cluttering up their screens? Just as the Mail’s readership is not a monolith, we know that their staff cannot be either.
I would love to know their reaction to these kinds of online surges – and not out of any sense of schadenfreude, fly-on-the-wall, Downfall-type snigger. I think it would be a genuinely useful insight into how major media operations operate in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Any pseudonomynous contributions in the comments would be gratefully received.

Rob's #LeadersDebate Reax, Part II

22 April 2010 / / 0 Comments

Some quick points.
I don’t think this was a game changer. By which, I mean, I think the pro-Clegg narrative of the last few days should continue. Clegg avoided a smackdown on the EU because Brown was largey in agreement, and although he wobbled and was criticised on Trident there was no killer argument from either Gordon Brown on David Cameron.
Clegg’s opening remarks were very strong. I think the assertion of the importance on climate change was persuasive.
On occasions there was too much focus on anecdotes and detail. All three men seemed listless on Afghanistan and all were searching for something to say on the delightfully loaded question about the Pope. It is fine to express sympathy for the victims of Catholic child-abuse, but it’s not an election issue.
The ‘open’ section was a repeat of last week – In some cases, word for word, it seemed. But the issues are the issues, so perhaps this is neccesary.
Brown stopped smiling: good. But he did tell another pre-scripted joke about kids in the bath, which I was disappointed but not surprised to see the news channels highlighting as their soundbite of choice.
Clegg had his own sound-bite “the old parties” which seemed a little forced and false. However, he made very short work of Bolton’s chuckle about the fact that he was “on the front page of the Telegraph” this morning. It made Bolton look like a bit of a dick and highlighted the inability of the partisan media to influence the election.
On the final pitch, Brown went off piste… and Cameron managed to look mature in response. Clegg’s speech was definitely the strongest of the three, and so I was surprised that the YouGov insta-poll put Cameron ahead overall.
As for the TV presentation: What horrible visuals on Sky News! The news ticker was a distraction, and the constant label announcing what we were watching (in case it wasn’t obvious) cut off the politicians’ chins.
And Christ! The pre- and post-debate pundit was excrutiating. A clubby and cliquey window into someone else’s party. The BBC’s Emily Maitless gushed t how the “Westminster village has decamped to Bristol” as if she was talking about a load of pretentious English students, on a jolly to Glaspnbury or the Edinburgh festival.
I wrote earlier today that the media is failing to cover this election properly. But in way, that’s alright – Greater exposure to the leaders, and better democratic tools at our disposal, mean that we will make an informed choice on 6th May.

Fallout

22 April 2010 / / 0 Comments

As flights resume following the Eyjafjallajokull erruption, Europe is left counting the economic cost of a genuine, real-life, bona fide Act of God.  I was at the London Book Fair this week, with English PEN, and saw first hand the effect that cancelled travel plans can have on commerce, and indeed, the free flow of ideas.  Below is my Flickr photoset ‘Fallout’, showing the forlorn empty trade stands at the fair.

On Nuclear War

21 April 2010 / / 5 Comments

Vexing:

RT @iaincorby: If a foreign power explodes a dirty nuclear bomb in the UK what are LibDems going to do? A strongly worded letter to the UN?

This attitude presupposes that the appropriate response to having an instant genocide visited upon you, is to commit your own genocide in return. We have largely banished the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ philosophy from our political debates, with regards to both justice and strategic military matters, but when it comes to the biggest and most despicable act of mass-murder one can imagine, we are perfectly happy to imagine ourselves returning the favour. Killing a million innocents and making sure that the earth’s atmosphere, already crippled from one nuclear bomb, is truly buggered by the detonation of a second… all perfectly acceptable, because “they started it”? I think a very good case could be made which says that the one time when you definitely do not want to be using nuclear weapons, is right after you have been nuked yourself. A military policy based on revenge is not what we should be aiming for, surely?
As an aside, I’ll note that the protracted military response from the USA to the September 11 attacks managed to be incredibly violent and punative without resorting to nuclear bombs. Now Mohammed Atta and his terrorist friends weren’t using dirty bombs, of course, so its not a like-for-like comparison. But the attacks were unexpected, spectacular, and traumatic, as a dirty bomb would be. I mention this only to show that a President or a Prime Minister has other military options after suffering such an attack. “Writing a strongly worded letter” on the one hand, and pressing the Big Red Button on the other, are never the only options. It is wrong to ridicule Nick Clegg or anyone else who points this out.

Update

Generals add their fire to Clegg’s attack on Trident

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑