David Milliband, government censorship and being punched from both sides

by Dennis Howlett on April 30, 2006

This is my response to an excellent explanation by David Tebbutt about how censorship impacts our attention in blogging. David and I had an offline conversation about this prior to him posting.

Hey David/Jackie:

Ali says I’m cynical. Jackie flays me for missing the point but she’s got ‘comments closed.’ Bit of a touch of the pot and the kettle methinks. I’ve emailed Jackie. Now I’ll just get back in my pram having concluded I can’t win and to get back on topic.

This is the first time I’ve seen comment moderation expressed in such a simple and clear way. Well done David. I have a Ts&Cs page. I make it very clear what I will and will not tolerate. And I’m a member of the Attention Trust. [note - so is David]

All Ali has to do is come back and declare who he/she is and then we can fairly assess what is said. Having said all that, it is better to get something than nothing. and if censorship continues then we all know what we can do.

I did feel sore about this. So I’m attempting to get an answer on this as well.

Even so, we now have a partial and imperfect lens into government. The more inventive of my readers will, I’m sure, find ways of using Milliband’s blog to prise open government just an inch or two. If not then someone out there is bound to set up a lampoon site – if it doesn’t already exist?

Others will be horrified and think this is the most dangerous medium they’ve ever seen. And they’d be right. It’s dangerously innovative.

UPDATE: Being something of a conspiracy lover how about we turn this the other way around? Should I blog David asking if I can get a pensions update as an ex-pat please? Maybe I’d bypass the interminable wait for this information. Oh – Ok – maybe not. But hey – blogs as customer service? Ab-so-lutely.

Technorati Tags: ,

  • Share/Bookmark
  • I love the conspiracy theories suggested here, but I think the the key issue is the cherry picking and censorship of comments. It's vital we all have comment moderation and something like akismet to weed out the spam, but those blogs that try to impose their own spin by editing the conversation are heading in a dangerous direction. Hopefully, it should become obvious to the audience over time that the responses are unbalanced, and it will devalue the blog's voice and usefulness... but this kind of censorship can be subtle. In Millband's case, I hope these types of post and comment put him in the spotlight.

    On Mr. Prescott, Dennis highlights the peculiarity of the British media and our collective prurience - in France it wouldn't rate a column inch - how do we all let it make front page news in most papers for several days?

    Lastly, thanks to Stuart for highlighting that statement in the ts and cs. I'm in local politics myself, and I'm always confused by this stance when so many of the policies and decisions we make in government are rooted in party politics and the voting complexion of the particular body you are sitting on. Surely that's what democracy is all about.
  • David: I'd forgotten that today's Mirror becomes tomorrow's chip wrap. At least today's blog has a chance of becoming tomorrow's memory

    Jackie: OK - different point of view and yes I see the validity of the argument. Same goes for Channnel 9 then in your book? OK. But I'd rather have a bit of something than a lot of nothing. We'll see what Milliband lets through and what he doesn't 0ver time.
  • The BBC say Prescott's bit of fluff was Tracy Temple. The Mail on Sunday says it's Tracey Temple.

    I took my lead from the BBC. Maybe that was silly of me.
  • Dennis, I'm afraid you're still missing the point.

    David Milliband's blog is not David Milliband's private property. We pay for it. He chooses to publish comments which glorify him, but not those which question the source of glorification. This is dodgy.

    Jackie Danicki's blog is private property. I pay for it, with my money and my time. You don't get a platform at my blog unless I give you one, and you have zero claim on one there. This is as it should be.

    Your claim of pot/kettle/blackness has no substance at all.

    Yes, Ts and Cs for comments (even a state one) are a fine and necessary thing. I'm not saying Milliband has to publish the spammers and the psycho stalkers (which, as it happens, are precisely the reason I don't enable comments by default on my blog). I'm saying he should not pat himself on the back for his openness and communication with taxpayers when he is actively censoring taxpayers' valid questions at the same time.

    Spot the difference?
  • I was amused by the terms and conditions of Milliband's site especially number five:

    This is a Government website and comments used for party political purposes will be removed.

    At the risk of being slightly flippant at a time when we should all be feeling sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister does number five mean the opposite of " What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" ?
  • It's why I said "this nation". I had originally added "other countries, such as Norway and France couldn't give a toss". But it was diluting my point.

    The other thing which your comment raises is that a major function of the UK press is to entertain. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. In our case a bucketful of sugar helps the spoonful of news go down. It's probably why our daily press has such high circulations compared with other countries.

    And, being less high-minded, this gives plenty of advertisers the chance to spend money.
  • For goodness sake David - in France 2 Jags dilletante behaviour is taken as
    the norm. We take it as said that men of power get an extra shag as a benefit in kind. We don't care. Is that the pinnacle of intelligent discussion back in Blighty? Gawd help us all.
  • Hell David, and I thought I was cynical! Good point though.
  • We could ask Mr Milliband (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) for more information about the impact on his department of the story that's convulsing this nation, John Prescott's sexual shenanigans with Tracy Temple.

    [John Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister and, by an amazing coincidence, this story totally eclipsed two rather more important stories about Home Office incompetence and two attacks by National Health Service staff on government minister Patricia Hewitt. Maybe Mr Milliband would like to talk to us about how this (allegedly old) story was leaked on the very day that the government was in desperate need of some covering fire. Will it be Lord Prescott next? A gesture of a grateful nation.]
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: