Sunday, October 10, 2010

Quote of the Day: Andrew Marr



"Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people. OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night."
Andrew Marr at the Cheltenham Literary Festival
Hmmm. Fair comment, or a deranged rant?
I wonder if Anna Raccoon would agree.

34 comments:

The Filthy Engineer said...

Do you think that the MSM are becoming worried about the increasing power of the blogosphere?

This is a case in point.

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-blog-society/

john in cheshire said...

I think Mr Marr needs to take a look in the mirror.

Edward said...

Deranged rant... A man with a fear that the "noble art" of journalist is in fact not. Surely citizen journalism is about people having their say - right or wrong.

We are all citizen jouralist, arn't we?

Or are some citizen journalists more allowed to speak than others?

OrganisedPauper said...

My goodness! Just how out of touch is he? Where's he been?

Libertarian said...

This is so typical of MSM journalists like Marr. People who trot out the same old tired, clich├ęd, rehashed sound bites week after week.

Andrew dear boy, what you do is called "churnalism" and we don't buy it any more. If the BBC wasn't taxpayer funded under threat of prison you wouldn't even have a job

Mick Turatian said...

It's always refreshing to see a man who has had recourse to a super injunction to prevent journalists reporting on his own domestic arrangements, praising the craft of journalism and its practitioners.

NameHere said...

I wonder if this could be because some bloggers aren't as scared of writs as the "proper journalists". Who knows what those pimply young men might reveal.

Still, it's not surprising. Marr's love of journalists has been well documented on certain blogs.

Mirtha Tidville said...

Andrew Marr a Journalist?...shurely shome mishtake..

The Boiling Frog said...

"A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men..."

So says Andrew 'Brad Pitt' Marr.

Sounds like the rantings of a man overwhelmed by change instigated by natural market forces - an alien concept to those that work for the Guardian and the BBC I know.

It's 'citizen journalists' that have led the way on the EU, Climagegate, climate change scepticism, the 10:10 film disaster, while the so-called 'quality' journalists leave them well alone.

Perhaps that's what Marr is really afraid of.

Lord Blagger said...

Just look at the number of time's he's admitted being in the know, and yet said nothing.

Perhaps politicians have some of those super injunctions preventing him from saying anything.

Pot, kettle ...

Wrinkled Weasel said...

If ever there was need for the revival of the Samizdat, it is now.

The MSM have been well and truly found out. They have been found out to be a bunch of cutters and pasters and a bunch of lazy brown nosers who have a parasitical and very unhealthy closeness to the stories they write. cf Stephanie Flanders, Kirsty Wark and the rest. (Strangely, as far as the BBC is concerned, it always seems to be with Labour)

They hate us. They hate us because some bloggers do more work on stories than they do. They hate us because we don't cosy up to the liberal elite. They hate us because we can say things they cannot. And they cannot tell the truth or report the facts because they have to follow the "line".

And as anybody knows, the MSM spikes a lot of stories that should be in the public domain and they do this because they are not clever, investigative journalists; merely the recipients of what they are fed, and they want to appease their feeders.

We live in an era of fanatical and tyrannical political correctness and conformity. The MSM is a mirror of this disease. Bloggers may be angry, but they are mainly indignant, and they are not stupid. They know that something is not quite right about the way we are manipulated and by implication, the MSM is the medium of that manipulation. After all, it is they who failed to challenge the lies of Blair and Bush over Iraq, and it is the BBC in particular who, in the words of Marr himself have a left-leaning liberal bias.

Andrew Marr is part of an organisation that has nervously concluded it is under siege. And that organisation only has itself to blame, not us.

Witterings From Witney said...

Andrew Marr - Journalist? Oxymoron surely, with the emphasis on the last two syllables)

Weygand said...

Of course many people are angry and turning away from MSM - and not just the socially inadequate.....

Last week, Peter Oborne presented a fascinating programme suggesting that the Labour government had lived in fear of the Murdoch empire, no surprise there, but that this explained the handling of the NoW phone tapping investigation. As Mr Coulson is now in Downing Street one must expect the same to continue.

At the BBC, Today and Newsnight long ago gave up their authoritative, investigatory reputation for a transparent sensationalism; why get to the real issue when the artificial is so much more exciting and easier to follow.

Whether it be the press or broadcast media, many (and not just the young) have lost confidence that those representing MSM have both the capacity and the desire to offer a serious, intelligent and impartial presentation of the world.

M said...

In Scotland where Mr Marr comes from the whole of the MSM (including the BBC) appears to be nothing more than the loyal propaganda arm of the Labour party so no wonder bloggers have arisen in profusion to protest and to ensure that the truth gets out there.

Smoking Hot said...

"Most city journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all. A lot of journalists seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, very seedy, bald, cauliflower-eared, men sitting in parliament and expensive hotel bars taking their pieces of silver. OK – the country is full of very inadequate people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called city journalism is the paid for spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night."

Bill Quango MP said...

The only difference between 'real journalism' and the bloggers is the Reuters feed.
Bloggers have email, twitter and stealing stuff from the national media. But the national media does that too, only they have more money.
So Sky puts up a helicopter to watch a tree, and BBC sends reporters to interview nobodies while a gunman hides in a forest inside a police cordon.
What the columnists wrote afterwards was based on the same images that the bloggers viewed.
Bloggers wrote about the Moat story too. What's the difference except the readership. What does Katie Nicholl add, except her own views?

I like Marr. True, he is so lightweight he has to be tied to his interview chair in order that he doesn't blow away, but that's the price to be paid for getting the most senior politicians onto his show.
Where he should be braver is to have reviewers on the sofa discussing what the PM or the shadow so & so just said. And a specialist who can give an opinionated overview.

As for blogging in a basement? How out of date is that image? He hasn't heard of a notebook, coffee and sofa then?

Glyn H said...

Strange then that those of us who read this site, Guido, several others plus the Eye seem better informed than those who rely on TV and daily newspapers.

simon said...

Allowing for hyperbole, he's broadly right Some very high proportion of blogging and the comments that go with it is just badly expressed opinion, usually laced with obsessive, impotent rage.

A vanishingly small number of bloggers actually get stories. The vast majority simply opine on stories broken by the professional journalists on whom they are parasitic. This dependency breeds the inferiority complex that manifests itself in rage agains the 'MSM'.

trevorsden said...

Marr should take a look mat his own inept profession before letting loose his own rants.

wild said...

If I had a choice I would not shell out cash to Andrew Marr so that he can arse lick his pals in the Leftist establishment, but I don't have a choice, and that is the way he likes it.

SadButMadLad said...

He's not the only "churnalist" to say that.

There are a lot of journalists who are crap writers and just churn out PRs. Many also have obvious chips on their shoulders.

There are a lot of bloggers who just spout forth garbage desperate to get attention. Many also have conspiracy theories on their minds.

But there are also good bloggers and good journalists.

However one thing that affects journalists and not bloggers is that journalists are dependant on the hand that feeds them. Bloggers aren't paid, they do it as a hobby, for the fun of it, or because of their interest in a subject.

So poltical journalists will never tell the truth - they will only tell the lies that the politcians want publicised. Witness all the journalists now talking about GB's mental illness but who in the past denied it ever existed. Guardian journalists will always go on about the tax affairs of rich people but will never talk about the tax affairs of the newspaper's owners.

Gareth said...

After Andrew Marr's fawning over Labour, including acting as Gordon Brown's mouthpiece when Brown was unwilling to face the media, I do not consider Marr to be a journalist. He is merely a presenter, presenting other people's view and other people's news.

The contrast between Marr and Sophie Raworth when she sat in for him illustrates the difference.

Fern Britton is a better journalist than Andrew Marr.

Tapestry said...

Andrew Marr has had it as a serious commentator, if he ever deserved such description. He's only in place because he knows which arse hole to lick.

Bloggers don't need to lick arse, Marr. You do.

Honesty always offends the ears of a habitual liar which is all a courtier can ever be. The concept of truth is not even something they can understand. All truth is relative when it's being interpreted on behalf of the powerful.

Marr is a dissembling arse-rat, whose comfortable little nest is being exposed by people who see him for what he actually is. No wonder he's running around in a state of blind panic, looking for a way to stem the advance of truth and democratic accountability as their waters seep steadily under his door.

Unsworth said...

No doubt Marr regards himself as a latter day Robin Day...

Terence said...

Please do have a read of:

www.labour-news.co.uk

Hopeless drivel.

Terence said...

Please do have a read of:

www.labour-news.co.uk

Hopeless drivel.

Roger Thornhill said...

Marr needs to both look in the mirror and read transcripts of some of his "output".

His comment is pure ad hominem - "these guys are misfits, so what they say does not count"

Marr has moved from "Ignore" to "laugh/hate". When he begins to fight them, he will lose.

Right Hon. said...

Hell hath no fury like a blogger scorned...

I thought Marr's comments were pretty much on the money.

julaybib said...

Marr is smart - his quote pressed the publicity buttons in order to promote his latest book. And the publicity has come because of who said it, not what was said. Because what he said was rubbish.

I certainly don't believe Marr is trying to defend the noble profession of journalism. Anyone reading 'My Trade' cannot but come away with the impression that, despite his passionate love for his industry, Marr believes most journalists wipe their feet on the way OUT of the office.

Jason Crabtree said...

Andrew Marr must be getting confused with the Radio Five (Five Live) phone-ins, where the callers are obviously very angry, possibly drunk, and do tend to rant and rave on all manner of subjects from the color of men's socks to bringing back hanging for kleptomaniacs. They're also obviously ugly, go shopping in Tescos wearing pyjamas, are socially maladjusted, and have a severe dose of tinnitus.

Now who was it who said that generalisations are always false (including this one)?

neil craig said...

Simon how many mainstream journalists actually find stories as opposed to slightly rewriting the press releases & briefings approved politicians, quangos & government fakecharities, on whom they are parasitic, give them.

On any day if the BBC lead with a new "report" on how "scientists say global warming may be worse than previously thought" etc it will be all over the press too. Do all these editors independently decide that this is a big story? Or that the various scandals about warming that were broken by bloggers & censored by the MSM weren't big? I could name many other important things the MSM simply won't report.

There used to be a definition of things only being "news" if somebody in authority didn't want it known. That was in the old days when journalists were slightly scruffy like Clark Kent. When they went searching for stories. Nowadays "newspapers" eschew such news & it is left to bloggers. "Journalists" are now far better paid media personalities (eg Piers Morgan) precisely because what they report is so vacuous.

Brett said...

Marr's comments reflect a fear not only of new technologies, but also of the erosion of privileges they encourage: http://bit.ly/bkYMd2

SadButMadLad said...

And proper journalists like Richard Littlejohn don't write angry articles ranting about everything and anything? I thought it was also well known that journalists of Fleet St were always drunk in the afternoons.

slouchingtowardsthatcham.com said...

Marr has relied on blogs for rumours to fire questions at Gordon Brown in the past. If he thinks there's little of value in the blogosphere, why read it?

So he responds to "angry, abusive and vituperative" citizen journalists with a series of knowingly inflammatory statements which are angry, abusive and vituperative.O-kaaay.

Good God, have we reverted to the law of the playground? "He's ugly, sir! And really angry! And I really, really hate him!"

A shame, because the point he was making about the need for us to recognise the economic value of accurate, professional news gathering and dissemination is a valid one. Instead, we get this tawdry, headline-grabbing tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush blunderbuss approach.

Here are my thoughts on Marr's comments. I would welcome your comments, as long as they're not angry, abusive or vituperative, of course! ;-)

http://slouchingtowardsthatcham.com/2010/10/13/in-defence-of-bloggers-an-open-letter-to-andrew-marr/