Urban v's the Commentariat

[discokermit]

I thought you were andy wilson? Are you not?

no. would've mentioned zappa by now.

 

[bamalama]

Such a major influence that Buster Keaton's estate sued for breach of copyright in the first case, and Laurel & Hardy's estates in the second.

I did not know that

 

[andysays]

no. would've mentioned zappa by now.

I'd never heard of Wilson, but I've now looked him up, and as he's a mate of Ben Watson, who I am vaguely familiar with, you're probably right (or Derek Bailey, of course...)

 

[ViolentPanda]

I did not know that

It's not true!

My point is, if you watch Keaton and Laurel & Hardy (or Chaplin, or Harold Lloyd) you'll see exactly the same pratfalls (Keaton through a saloon bar, Laurel & Hardy unbolting a chandelier), 70-odd years before they were done on "Only Fools and Horses".

 

[bamalama]

It's not true!

My point is, if you watch Keaton and Laurel & Hardy (or Chaplin, or Harold Lloyd) you'll see exactly the same pratfalls (Keaton through a saloon bar, Laurel & Hardy unbolting a chandelier), 70-odd years before they were done on "Only Fools and Horses".

Don't do that vp,ye bastard

 

[The39thStep]

Indubitably. As was the candlearbra scene, which I saw again last night.

It wasn't a major influence though ,it was like clarkson just very very popular.

 

[emanymton]

Again, you're creating bollocks strawman versions of what I and others are saying, the easier to knock them down.

Of course we have to recognise the collective construction of social reality - nothing I've said has contradicted that - I'm simply suggesting that for you or I or anyone else to contribute to that construction is more difficult/less effective than it is for Clarkson (but neither impossible or not worth attempting) because

1. He has a massive reach, both on TV and through other media
2. He is pushing an establishment/pro-capitalist/anti w/c agenda which is part of the dominant ideology, and therefore has a huge advantage. Compared to him, you or I will tend to be seen as an eccentric lone voice.

By prejudices, BTW, I mean ideas which are ill thought out and generally accepted because they are a part of the dominant ideology, not necessarily prejudices against particular groups of people, though the two often overlap. I haven't suggested that those prejudices can't be overcome, I think they can, and critical discussion and an alternative collective re-construction of social reality is a hugely important part of that.


The thing you posted yesterday about Illuminati etc is a good example of how such things might be challenged, so I'm certainly not saying it's impossible, but simply asserting that Clarkson etc don't have a significant influence, and refusing to explore how that influence works is helping no one.

And not that it matters, but I'm not that or any other Andy Wilson, and if you thought that I had ever been a member of the SWP, then either you've totally misread some or all of what I've written, or I've somehow managed to give a completely false view of my history and opinions...

But has Clarkson ever changed someone's views on a subject? Has anyone started out believing A and had their view changed to B by him? Not many I suspect.

 

[belboid]

Wilson ex of swp and now of AMM.

naah, he is registered, quite ingeniously, as 'Andy Wilson'

 

[belboid]

But has Clarkson ever changed someone's views on a subject? Has anyone started out believing A and had their view changed to B by him? Not many I suspect.

surely the point of Clarksons 'influence' is not that he changes opinions, but he reinforces them, and he makes all that guff about women drivers etc 'acceptable discourse.' It's not as if he is likely to have had a clause inserted into the draft bill on suburban planning regulations (tho who knows what goes on in those cosy Chippy Chats)

 

[andysays]

But has Clarkson ever changed someone's views on a subject? Has anyone started out believing A and had their view changed to B by him? Not many I suspect.

I don't know the answer to that question, but you seem to be using an overly narrow meaning to the idea of influence. I would suggest that all his shit, combined with all sorts of other factors, add up to an influence which is supportive of the status quo.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The thing about Clarkie having influence - It's not so much to do with his writing for the Sun, loads of people read the Sun but don't believe half the stuff that's in it. It's not to do with his media presence at all, it's about the fact that he's good mates with Cameron and all those Chipping Norton clowns. And they're who are running the country - Being a member of that set gives him influence by definition surely?

 

[free spirit]

He's the only person I know that Clarkson could possibly be part of a some ongoing public debate with. Get out of your bubble.

spot the difference.

I managed it. No one i know beyond my dad knows who he is. What sort of debate is this?

 

[emanymton]

surely the point of Clarksons 'influence' is not that he changes opinions, but he reinforces them, and he makes all that guff about women drivers etc 'acceptable discourse.' It's not as if he is likely to have had a clause inserted into the draft bill on suburban planning regulations (tho who knows what goes on in those cosy Chippy Chats)

Well yes one on theas issues here is no one has clearly defined what is meant by influence, and I am not going to even try.

As you say he reinforces existing ideas, in the same way that people reading newspapers tend to simply reinforce what they already belive. Somebody can happly agree with every word of one sun article, if it supports what they already think. The turn the page and disagree with every word of another which contradicts what they think. This may be influence but it is quite week.

There would be no way to guess this from my last post, but it was really more of a reaction to the empty vessel nonsense that was creeping in, rather than to the whole influence question.

As a slight aside, I tend to feel that the real power of the media rests not so much on how they report the news, but in the ability to decide what counts as news at all.

 

[newbie]

I'd suggest influence rests in the opportunity to have a voice and be listened to because what's said matters.

Clarkson matters both because he's central to the Chipping Norton set (& it's worth reminding just what that was/is) and because he has clear popularity with his public. He can talk directly to a demonstrably appreciative audience and is likely to be listened to. He can also upset him opponents quite successfully, which is important because it demonstrates effectiveness. None of the others, except perhaps Cameron, can do that.

Yet until the phone hacking scandal he appeared, at least to me, simply a rather maverick TV personality. His connection to, and voice within, elite power puts him in a different light.

Maybe what he says to the public often does simply reinforce existing opinions (is that not the case with any commentator?) but his abrasive, populist style and outspokenness can occasionally generate controversy and urge people to take sides- are you the sort of robust indenpendent thinker that makes Britain great, or one of the sad cases who whimper their complaints to the BBC? He wouldn't have the ability to polarise if he wasn't being listened to.

 

[ska invita]

Another way of asking this is Who are the 10 most influential commentators.

According to this http://www.editorialintelligence.com/ei-news/article.php?d=080413 its this lot below (in 2008)
Cant see how they arrive at the conclusion, though it mentions a poll, but I get the feeling its not a poll of the public, but of other opinion formers, politicians, think tank wonks and so on. Haha imagine being influenced by Polly Toynbee

in 2008 it was these (1-10), with Polly T in first place:
Polly Toynbee – The Guardian
Trevor Kavanagh – The Sun
Irwin Steltzer – The Sunday Times
Nick Robinson –BBC blog ‘Nick Robinson’s Newslog’
Anatole Kaletsky – The Times
Simon Jenkins – The Guardian / Sunday Times
= Robert Peston – BBC blog ‘Peston’s Picks’
= Jeff Randall – Daily Telegraph
Richard Littlejohn – The Daily Mail
George Monbiot – The Guardian
= Martin Wolf – The Financial Times
= Matthew d’Ancona – The Sunday Telegraph

Without seeing how they arrived at this list I think it needs a big pinch of salt

Seems that these Editorial Intelligence people produced a paper called 'So how much power do the commentators really wield?'
summarised here http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/apr/27/politicalcolumnists.guardiancolumnists

 

[ska invita]

But has Clarkson ever changed someone's views on a subject? Has anyone started out believing A and had their view changed to B by him? Not many I suspect.

All opinions are formed through a complex ongoing process. Keeping up a status quo is equal to changing opinions in my book.

 

[weepiper]

Has anyone posted this excellent article on useless commentariat yet?

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2013/08...-and-the-useless-self-appointed-commentariat/

 

[equationgirl]

View attachment 38899

I really like that ink, and you have great handwriting

 

[The Pale King]

It's not true!

My point is, if you watch Keaton and Laurel & Hardy (or Chaplin, or Harold Lloyd) you'll see exactly the same pratfalls (Keaton through a saloon bar, Laurel & Hardy unbolting a chandelier), 70-odd years before they were done on "Only Fools and Horses".

Harold Lloyd was brilliant. Doesn't get enough credit if you ask me.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Hugo Schwyzer has been mentioned on the old thread so might as well dump this here.

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/10/bad-b...-sex-and-charm-and-whiteness-to-scam-you-all/

 

[Belushi]

That's a proper meltdown.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Harold Lloyd was brilliant. Doesn't get enough credit if you ask me.

Agreed. Keaton and Chaplin get loads of kudos, but Lloyd gets forgotten compared to them, even though he not only came up with all his own physical comedy, but invented "stunts" for other comics too.
There was a "kings of comedy" prog a few years ago that had footage of one of his contemporaries saying that most of them used to watch Lloyd filming his stunt scenes with their hands over their eyes, because a lot of his stunts, even his pratfalls, were so borderline in terms of being possibly harmful or fatal.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

A modest wordsmith writes...

Laurie Penny ‏@PennyRed 8m
I may have invented the word 'spleencockery' to describe the banal, stage-managed, shouty spite infesting the press - http://bit.ly/17iKWPD

 

[Santino]

Agreed. Keaton and Chaplin get loads of kudos, but Lloyd gets forgotten compared to them, even though he not only came up with all his own physical comedy, but invented "stunts" for other comics too.
There was a "kings of comedy" prog a few years ago that had footage of one of his contemporaries saying that most of them used to watch Lloyd filming his stunt scenes with their hands over their eyes, because a lot of his stunts, even his pratfalls, were so borderline in terms of being possibly harmful or fatal.

He also only had one hand.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He also only had one hand.

Not quite, he lost his thumb and a finger and a half in an explosion on set, hence the white glove. Mad sod!

 

[equationgirl]

Hah. spleencockery isn't nearly as good as the words I've seen invented on here.

 

[equationgirl]

Hugo Schwyzer has been mentioned on the old thread so might as well dump this here.

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/10/bad-b...-sex-and-charm-and-whiteness-to-scam-you-all/

My word. That's some manic phase he's having.

 

[el-ahrairah]

proper meltdown innit. still, it's nice that he outed himself.

 

[DotCommunist]

someone c+p for me, can't load that without crashing the lappy

 

[love detective]

A modest wordsmith writes...

...an understanding that we may pretend to hate each other on screen, but we’re all friends really, when the cameras are off. We’re part of the same media elite, we run in the same circles and we’re playing the same game

Having played that game for four years, I believe the losers are all the viewers, all the listeners and all the readers who have to put up with talking heads howling emptily at each other over a void of banal chatter and with being told that this constitutes constructive public discourse and fair representation of a range of opinions.

remarkably truthful and honest point she makes there though (even if the whole article is purely an outlet for her to talk about how often she is on the telly)

edit: and putting aside the fact it's pretty much plaigrised from a critique of her on this very forum