Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Page 255 of 328

Who are you writing for?

Andrew Anthony, having a healthy online debate with Sunny Hundal:

Your post reminds me of Conor Foley’s first posting, insofar as they both seem primarily interested in proving their nuanced credentials

One feature of online discourse is that very little is taken for granted. A blogger (especially one on a highly trafficked site like Comment is Free) has to cater for all persuasions.
In practice, this means you have to add more information than is strictly necessary to advance your message. Either that, or risk getting lost in the minutae of a debate that distracts from the new and interesting point you were trying to make. I don’t think Sunny was trying to prove anything by citing his ‘credentials’. He was merely citing certain previous examples of his writing, in order to head off fairly the obvious counter-arguments.
By contrast, I think print newspaper columnists and authors have a general idea of who their audience might be, and write accordingly. If you can be sure that your readers all share certain values, and accept certain arguments, then you feel confident about jumping into the debate several conceptual steps down the line. This confidence is shattered when you enter a world where responses are immediate and unfiltered by a Letters Editor. Authors are left with the impression that the readers are impolite, uncouth and agressive.
I actually think a great deal of ‘fisking’ is redundant for the same reason. Since the blogger does not share the same world-view as the columnist the target, a line by line rebuttal never seems as effective as a stand-alone composition.
There is a well known phenomena of bloggers suffering ennui with the medium, eighteen months or so after they begin. I am just emerging from just such an affliction now (although since I post at a relatively low frequency I doubt either of my readers would have noticed). I think much of this frustration is a result of never getting to the nub of the argument, never quite managing to debate the subtle point one wishes to make. Instead, the discussion is dominated by the clarification and vocalising of preconceptions and core values.
This worry passes, of course, since the core values are either reinforced or abandoned by the scrutiny. Blogging is a process of clarification as much as anything else.

Chinese Reincarnation

This caption, from BBC News early on Saturday morning, caught my eye:
Chinese release new regulations for reincarnation

China Buddhism
New Regulations on Reincarnation

There is plenty of debate in the UK (and in Europe) about the parameters of political discourse, and the role played by religion. Our governments are accused of disingenuous behaviour and doublespeak. But let us be thankful that we do not have to deal with dictats so utterly senseless and evil as those reported here.
The move by the Chinese is another depressing chapter in their suppression of Tibet. My interview with the Dalai Lama is here.

FEAST

Edinburgh residents: Don’t forget the FEAST performance this evening.

FEAST is a unique Chinese intercultural event to encourage greater understanding between Chinese and Scottish communities through a creative exploration of food, film and music.
Edinburgh-based band FOUND and Chinese composer / musician Kimho Ip will be giving a special performance at Eating Place on Castle Street (off the West End of Princes Street), Edinburgh on Thursday 30 August at approximately 6 pm. They will also present other performances earlier that afternoon. Read More

Chili Bowl

Who to blame?

Online writing has many advantages. It is immediate, and allows space for dissenting opinion where other media fail. It also provides a space to write without compromise. I think most bloggers (and blog commenters) would describe themselves as ‘uncompromising’, but often the rants are gratuitous, and serve no higher purpose other than a catharsis for the writer.
At other times, the shocking imagery is entirely appropriate, as in a post on Friday from Justin at Chicken Yoghurt, on the subject of teen killers and Rhys Jones:

If the author has any sense, he’ll be working on ‘101 Uses For A Dead Kid’ and make a fortune. The first use, I’d humbly suggest, is wedging a dead kid under the leg of a political party to stop it from wobbling, much as you would with a beer mat and a pub table. If that doesn’t work, take the corpse and beat your political opponent with it.

For years editors have found that if they suspend a dead child over the news desk, the resulting smell will attract hordes of readers seeking an emotional outpouring by proxy.

It is a sound point, but I doubt it would find its way into a newspaper. The satire is well placed, but it would be deemed too risky, and liable to being misunderstood. Journalists know this quite well, and self-censor as a result. Madeline Bunting also makes an important point in The Guardian today, but her article has a boilerplate feel to it, and lacks the impact of the Chicken Yoghurt piece.
Justin’s post prompted me to add a comment, which I may as well post here too.
It is notable that when an Islamic terrorist atrocity occurs, or a black child is murdered, the chat is all about how their culture is obviously flawed. Members of that ‘community’ must weed out the perpetrators and provide better role models.
Yet when an atrocity occurs within a predominantly white ‘community’, and the liberal left begin blaming the wider culture, the condemnations of wishy-washy self-hating political correctness are not far behind.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑