Summarising the state of the story [!] at the start of the programme, she said: “The longer ministers and the prime minister insist he worked within [the guidelines], the more likely the angry response to the scandal is likely to be … He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools, and has allowed many more to assume they can flout them.”
Talking of Johnson’s “blind loyalty” in the face of plummeting poll ratings, she expressed bafflement over his loyalty to Cummings in the face of enormous public anger. “The prime minister knows all this and has chosen to ignore it,” she said.
The BBC this time decided to act (very half-heartedly):
“The BBC must uphold the highest standards of due impartiality in its news output,” the corporation said in a statement. “We’ve reviewed the entirety of last night’s Newsnight, including the opening section, and while we believe the programme contained fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism, we feel that we should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, [ie an agenda] with all the accompanying evidence [Maitlis-type evidence?] , in the rest of the programme...“As it was, we believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality. Our staff have been reminded of the guidelines.”
Controversy duly erupted. Some interventions commended 'serious investigative work on Cummings' or insisted Maitlis only 'told the truth'. What struck me was the confidence with which she seems to have announced:
- enormous public anger, people feeling like fools, people feeling allowed to flout the rules. All this is based on 'plummeting poll ratings'? How many 'people' does she know? Are the specific reasons for the plummet as she says?
- Johnson's motives (blind loyalty), and what Johnson knows to the contrary, implying Johnson's irrationality. Where did that come from -- a no.10 leak? More like Maitlis's skilled reading of the portents and omens.
Struggling with French philosophy, as one does during lockdown when there's nothing on telly, I think this self-certainty might be an example of logocentrism. If I have understood this term (not guaranteed), it refers to that moment of conviction when something presents itself so vividly to one's consciousness and in a way that perfectly confirms what one is arguing, that it just seems undeniable, immediately correct, utterly convincing, requiring no further justification. Even serious philosophers do it.
Sociologists have a more pragmatic account though. The 'habitus' for Bourdieu is a stock of understandings and values held unconsciously and affected by one's social class upbringing. It provides a framework generating constant and immediate judgments about events. To cite aristo examples -- 'one instinctively knows' that a chap doesn't wear brown shoes in town, that using too many parentheses in writing means a poor character, that rugby forwards are all louts and rugby backs skilfull and intelligent -- or whatever.
It has been simply obvious and true (that is habitual) all along to the new petite bourgeoisie that Johnson is a cad, liar and elitist. Cummings is a Northerner and an expert who reads suspiciously widely, so we need say no more. Of course all 'people' will think them completely untrustworthy (except those mugs who voted for and support them, of course -- but they are not really 'people').
Blessed with such a grasp, who needs 'evidence' or 'journalistic values'?
No comments:
Post a Comment