Archive: George Galloway

I’m a little bit confused by this Comment is free malarky. I get the whole “Bleeeargh! Newspapers! Old media! Adapt or die!” thing. But The Guardian has been doing blogs for ages. So what’s new? What’s the big thing? What’s all the fuss about?

I read somewhere that they’ve got over 200 people signed up to be writing for ‘Comment is free’. But why weren’t they blogging in the first place? Couldn’t they just have got George Galloway to write some stuff for Newsblog, or Mark Lawson to write something for Culture Vulture?

There’s been a blaze of hype for ‘Comment is free’, but I don’t even know what it is meant to be. It’s being called a blog. I don’t think I’m the sort of person that goes on about what is and isn’t a blog (although I strongly feel that a comment section is half of what a blog should be all about). And I don’t have a problem with the ‘mainstream media’ climbing aboard the bandwaggon. But it doesn’t feel much like a blog to me.

The design is lovely — in fact, it serves as yet another reminder of just how creaky the old Guardian Unlimited design is these days. But if you’re looking for something a bit bloggy, prepare to be confused. The lion’s share of the screen is given over to ‘Editor’s picks’, which I guess is fair enough. With over 200 writers, it will probably be quite easy to miss notable entries. But at the moment there is a massive illustration in the way. Is it going to be there forever? On my monitor, it takes up about half of the browser window’s height. It pissed me right off the first time I visited.

In the top right-hand corner we’re given links to columns that were written for the dead tree edition. You can’t post comments to them, which makes this part of ‘Comment is free’ little different to the old Comment & Analysis (or whatever they renamed it for the Berliner redesign) section. The ‘blog’ — the chronologically ordered list of posts — is shoehorned into a tiny column on the left. It really does seem like the blog idea has been sidelined.

As for the comments section itself, you have to jump through hoops to register for it — although this seems like an attempt to prevent spam / flaming / shite comments / etc. But why can’t you link back to your own blog? I am struggling to think of any other blog that has a comments facility and doesn’t let you do this, and Guardian Unlimited’s other blogs let you do this. This is a mistake — communication between blogs is part of what makes the ‘blogosphere’ the buzzing thing that it is. At least a link to Technorati results is displayed though, so that is something.

And another thing. Why is Steve Bell’s ‘If…’ in there? What’s that got to do with it? Why isn’t it just in the cartoons section?

I don’t think I get it. The introductory post begins:

Welcome to Comment is free, the first collective comment blog by a British newspaper website.

So Gamesblog, Organ Grinder and all of The Guardian‘s other blogs weren’t ‘collective comment blogs’ (whatever that is)? Apart from the swish design and the dizzying number of writers, I don’t understand what the difference is. And now that we have this massive ‘Comment is free’ überblog, why are all the old blogs continuing?

What I would really like to see is a comments section appended onto every single item published on Guardian Unlimited, although apparently this is only a matter of time. Makes me wonder once again, though, what the big difference about ‘Comment is free’ actually is.

Still, all head-scratching aside, this must be welcomed. The Guardian seems to be making a legitimate attempt at getting its writers to have a proper discussion with its readers. That is a real step forward. Less than year ago Mark Lawson wrote an article deriding blogs. Today he’s writing for one.

So my final verdict? We’ll wait and see, although for now it’s a tentative thumbs-up. I just need to work out what it actually is.

Charlie Brooker: Supposing… Galloway really tried to balls up his career:

[Upon eviction, George Galloway was] greeted by what sounded like an explosion in a boo factory…

In PR terms, it’s hard to think of anything worse he could’ve done during his stay in the house. But I’ll have a go. He could have 1) masturbated repeatedly on camera, staring the viewer straight in the eye; 2) pooed into a big bowl of flour in the middle of the kitchen; and 3) killed at least nine of his fellow housemates…

Heheheheheh.

I had a bit of a debate yesterday with a friend who is the second person I’ve come across (after Meaders) who thinks that George Galloway taking part in Celebrity Big Brother is actually (snigger) a good idea. My friend was convinced that George Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother was a masterstroke, designed to get apathetic people interested in politics. George Galloway to the rescue!

Er, no. You hear this sort of shit all the time. People, for some reason, always want to compare Westminster with Big Brother as if Big Brother is something that politics should aspire to. They say that more people vote in Big Brother than vote at a general election — though this ignores the fact that Channel 4 viewers are actively encouraged to vote multiple times, because that is how Channel 4 make their money from the programme. There could be only a few thousand people voting on Big Brother for all we know.

Apparently George Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother will get the Great Unwashed (who apparently all watch Big Brother) interested in politics. This is despite the fact that Galloway would never be allowed to use Big Brother as a political platform because Channel 4 have an obligation to remain politically balanced — a bit difficult to do in the Big Brother house. Galloway would have known this before he entered the house, so he couldn’t possibly have gone in to “spread the word”. It should be screamingly clear to everyone that Galloway is doing this for ego purposes alone.

Besides, the idea that an appearance on Big Brother is all it takes to halt apathy is really patronising. It is exactly the same as suggesting that because Dennis Rodman is on Big Brother all of a sudden everybody will find themselves interested in basketball. It’s plainly nonsense. People aren’t stupid. If they aren’t interested in politics, they aren’t interested in politics. Some suntanned, moustachioed ranting nutcase — who seems to genuinely believe that “almost every Muslim in the world” has heard of him — talking about opened orifices on a here-today-gone-tomorrow reality television show isn’t going to get anyone interested in politics.

It is exactly the same as anything in life. Some people are into football and others aren’t — that doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong, or that football needs to reach out to more people. I think the idea that everybody should be interested in politics is a really pious position to take. I think the only reason most of us are into politics is because some authority figure told us to be, or because it’s supposed to make you more intellectual or something.

I think that the people who don’t fuss themselves with politics — the ones who apparently all watch Big Brother — are the real clever ones. They know that the chance that their vote will be pivotal in the general election is so close to zero that they might as well not bother. The same goes for even voicing an opinion — there are so many people with opinions, so why should my own one make a difference? Any difference it makes will be so tiny that I might as well not have bothered. Those of us who are busy debating about politics are the real suckers.

Mr Eugenides has an amusing Big Brother joke.

Paul Kingsnorth on George Galloway.