Where to blog from here

I've somewhat noticed a lack of direction (not in my life generally, as some of my readers may like to think, naming no names), but in this blog. I know what I want to blog about, and that's everything, but more specifically race and religion as two issues I'm directly embroiled in.

But do I follow the model of news blogging, where I act as an unwanted commentator on current affairs and topical issues, or do I write about issues at random, following no obvious sequence or order, except that which only occurs in my own head?

I think this raises interesting questions about new media, I really do. Blogging, as wonderfully democratic as it is, can't help but follow the news industry model tailored for a global readership with severe attention deficit disorder. So, suppose I do bombard you with stuff on a daily basis, will that stuff have any meaning for you if it is not in key with the stupidly random global news agenda? What, am I dreaming?

Okay, so I don't bombard you with stuff on a daily basis, but give you thoughtful, well researched pieces that follow no agenda but serve to edify, nonetheless. Perhaps even a novel, given to you in blog post instalments over the course of a year. Okay, I know what you're thinking now, and that's exactly what I'm thinking, which is, what the hell am I thinking?

Apostasy

I've been following the story of one of my old teachers at Islamia School, London, who has courted the highest controversy by leaving Islam. If he had been a crack smoking teenager, a marijuana smoking hippie in his 20s, a money obsessed city worker in his 30s, a Golf playing Spain goer in his 40s, or a brandy drinking professor in his 50s, then maybe it wouldn't have been so bad. But this man had obtained degrees in Islamic studies, had taught at an Islamic school for 15 years and had written Islamic books for children. He was a popular and likeable teacher.

He made youtube videos explaining his story and repeating the thought processes that brought him to question the religious label he had carried for 50 odd years. He did this, rationally, calmly and with politeness and respect.

The videos generated the full gamut of responses. He got his usual haters, as well as old pupils displaying childish bile, which probably perturbed him for making his teaching skills seem questionable. I was forwarded an e-mail by an old schoolmate, which was written by another schoolmate, raising the alarm about this teacher and calling his actions "sick". Then he took his videos off because they were causing too much conflict.

I for one see him as an inspiring figure for his bravery, not because I'm an evil heretic myself, but because standing up to such an angry mob is brave by any standard. I wish him the best of luck, and I am proud to call him my teacher.

Femininity and the Divine

Homophobia and misogyny, two very closely linked bigotries, are charted as the chief evils of some religions today. Both stem essentially from patriarchal attitudes to the feminine, which is a reality irrespective of religion, and is only associated with religion because a particular form of medieval patriarchy has become crystalised in today's surviving medieval religions.

The partriarchal abuse of women and gays is essentially an abuse of the more compassionate, the more loving, the weaker. Shame that it has become so assoicated with a religion which originally sought to destroy masculinity, pride, anger and violence, to seek the favour of the feminine, compassionate, loving, Divine.

A den of iniquity

Well, Glastonbury has come and gone, again, but this time I haven't fantasised about being in a deluge of mud, music and iniquity, but seriously thought about it. For something to go from being an unspeakable fantasy to a viable reality in the space of ten years isn't too bad. If only people would understand that it isn't about mindless hedonism, but solely about the music...and maybe the mud. I think I'll go wellington shopping from now.

the terrorist

No matter the situation, no matter the cause or regime, the terrorist is the weaker party. Even when the terrorists are the majority, fighting against an oligarchal or tyrannical minority, they are wrong because they don't have a judiciary, executive or legislature; they are wrong because they don't have power; they are wrong because they are weak.

The Islamist

As I read this acclaimed book by Ed Husain, I couldn't help notice the sheer amount of editorial mistakes: from the reckless typo and lazy capitalisation inconsistency to the culturally ignorant Arabic term cock-ups and the never-ending parenthesis. I wouldn't usually be so anal as to complain about these things if the publisher wasn't as affluent and prestigious as Penguin Books Ltd.

Oh yes, the book itself. Well, aside from making me pull my hair out, I did enjoy the book. 'Enjoy' is probably not the right word here in light of the fact that I was horrified by it. Let me say rather that the book is informative and relevant. It has a lot to say about the current state of Islamism, as well giving a good overview of the current state of modern Islam. It is the first book by a former Islamist and therefore offers a vital perspective.

It gave me priceless behind-the-scenes knowledge of things I always see but never give too much thought to, and he is the first to justify my old confusion of Wahabbis and Islamists, both of whom adopt the same puritanical and literalist brand of Islam. I always thought they were one and the same before I heard each condemn the other. Husain reveals how the prevalence of Wahabbi mosques, literature and proselytising helped create fertile ground for the growth of modern Islamism.

While he sings the praises of the West and its freedoms, there is an implicit criticism of the 'West' through his scathing attack on Saudi Arabia and Wahabbism. At least there was for me. It reminded me of the film Syriana that showed so effectively how no one is an innocent party in this current war on terror, and how, rather than a clash of civilisations, what is really happening is a clash of many egos at the top of the political power chain. If Britain truly wanted to stamp out extremism on its shores, it can ban anything coming in from Saudi Arabia, for a start, and decapitate the current terrorism beast in one fell swoop.

Husain is right to say that the freedoms enjoyed by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Britain are at great odds with their ban and the imprisonment, toture and execution of its members in Arab countries. He makes the damning point that the Hizb wouldn't be where it is today, wouldn't be able to recuit and grow, if it wasn't for the freedom and welfare provided to it by Britain. The question remains how productive banning them would be.

flat earth news

Myths of the mass media

Flat Earth News by Nick Davies; Chatto and Windus, 2008; pp 416.

The Muslim news, May 2008.

The mainstream media have never made news of themselves because they have every reason to perpetuate the myth that they are the conduits of pure factual information about the world; that they are the founts of unadulterated truth and wisdom. This myth remains subconsciously in society until someone in the media themselves decisively stands up and points out that the emperor has no clothes. Nick Davies has not only revealed the machinations of media emperors in his new book, but has revealed their disastrous consequences for the state of the world. The book analyses every part of the news factory: from sourcing and supplying, to news desk assembling, to reveal that rather than being the result of some grand conspiracy, the sorry state of the world’s media is merely the sum of the twin human evils of greed and incompetence.

If anyone ever wondered how news outlets seem to know what the news agenda will be, in all its newsworthiness, before it comes to the humbly receptive readers, they need look no further. Britain’s news comes ultimately from one source, Press Association, Britain’s most trusted news agency, which feeds the news outlets. An agency so trusted that the BBC won’t corroborate any news it uses from it, whilst PA, in turn, gets most of its stories from press releases. The same PR agencies send their material straight to the newspapers to push and cement their stories further. Davies demonstrates how, in one big cannibalistic orgy of newspapers feeding off each other (in case one of them missed something) a consensual agenda of manufactured and arbitrary news is achieved. This is what Davies calls ‘churnalism’ and it is churnalism that perpetuates myths like the millennium bug and other ‘flat earth news’. According to Davies’ study of the top national broadsheets, only 12 percent of their stories are independently sourced.

Davies gives damning evidence of how this way of newsgathering misses vitally important news that is right under people’s noses, simply because someone didn’t issue a press release about it. He gives the example of the foiling of a BNP related bomb plot in October 2006 that involved the largest collection of chemical explosives ever found in the UK. Because the police didn’t inform the press about it, the press was exempt from its job of reporting and finding out these big stories for itself.

This brings Davies onto the invisible hand of PR which controls so much of news content to serve the interests of the companies and people it represents rather than serving to neutrally inform the public in the latter’s interest. He posits that the demise of journalism in the 80s coincided with the rise of PR, and shows how upper market PR firms can make or break people, turn heroes into villains and villains into heroes. Because only the rich can afford the services of a seasoned PR company, the news, as a result, works to the advantage of the most powerful groups in society.

Davies demonstrates how a lot of PR is outright lies and pure manufactured publicity stunts. An overstretched media outlet that is looking to cut more costs will welcome pre-set and pre-written streamlined news from PR companies, when all it has to do is run it and pass it off as its own. There are no safeguards in the media to prevent them from becoming hosts to all kinds of subtle advertising that works so brilliantly because we not only don’t know we’re being advertised to, but think we’re being simply and edifyingly informed.

Yet more unscrupulously, out and out black propaganda is passed off as independent journalism. Davies shows how a lot of media outlets are themselves subsidiaries of intelligence services, which pump out direct propaganda to other countries, especially those they are seeking to invade. The battle for Iraq wasn’t just one of arterial bombing and ground troops, but one which took place in the arena of information and public opinion, the most important battleground there is. Davies shows how American propaganda even succeeded in creating its own reality in the case of Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, who had no links to Al Qaeda before the relentless media assertions that he did turned the initial fantasy into a reality.

Surreptitious dealings don’t stop there, however. Davies details the workings of what he calls the ‘dark arts’, the work of Private Investigators (PIs) in the UK who obtain information illegally by contravening the Data Protection Act and whom the Information Commission is powerless to stop due to lack of funds. The next time a paper like The Times says ‘our sources have revealed’ or ‘The Times has learnt…’ you know what they’re talking about. Big newspapers not only have enough money to fight off all libel suits and competition, but the readership to influence public opinion about anything in a kind of modern day democratic totalitarianism. Davies even quotes senior Labour politicians to confirm the absolute power of the media.

A book that tells you everything that is wrong with the media, from commercialism and corruption to government spin and pure human incompetence, can be quite confounding; and for one that just about destroys your faith in humanity, it doesn’t provide a single citation to corroborate its research. It is a polemic, in short; one whose overall conclusion is that the media serve the status quo simply because it is easier to do so. This way, the book doesn’t serve as a hopeful diagnosis but a regrettable autopsy. It leaves you with the feeling that nothing can be done about the disastrous effects of bad popular journalism on policy makers. It is, nonetheless, vital reading, and it does strengthen the resolve, albeit inadvertently, of non-mainstream media in picking off where the mainstream media have failed, as well as providing a challenging counter narrative.