EU politics: differences in translation
Saturday 20 July 2013
 This sounds much more dramatic in German: "Wir wollen kein deutsches Europa", but it means exactly the same thing, and the German finance minister is undoubtedly sincere in his declarations, although there are subtle difference between the offerings in different papers. Amusingly, the Germans tell us that the idea that they want to play a special role in Europe is "absurd", while, in the Guardian this is relegated to a mere "misunderstanding". Actually, this is not amusing. There is a major difference between the two words – this is not a matter of nuance, or shades of meaning arising out of translation. There is no way "absurd" becomes "misunderstanding, without the Guardian making it so. Or is this, itself a misunderstanding? One wonders then whether it is nuance or misunderstanding when the Guardian goes on to tell us that "the Germans themselves are the last people who would want to put up with a German Europe". The Germans again put it differently: "A German Europe would be least tolerated by the Germans themselves". The difference are subtle – nuanced if you like – but I see in this a slight dilution of the German sentiment, even if British and Germans unite to have Schäuble saying, "We want to put Germany at the service of the European community's economic recovery – without weakening Germany itself". But there is yet another difference in that the Germans have Schäuble saying that the public debate is often marked by mutual accusations and mutual condescension. The Guardian has him saying that the debate is "dominated" by "mutual recriminations" (fair enough) and "populist commentary" – something completely different. They say of the United States and Britain that we are two countries divided by a common language, but when a message in German takes on a different meaning when transposed (rather than translated) to an English context, you wonder what to make of it. I've been watching Schäuble for years, trying to understand what drives him, and I am convinced that he is a "European" first and a German second. I believe him capable of doing to his home country exactly what Heath did to Britain. But is seems that the Guardian cannot bring itself to believe this. Even in this most European of British papers, one sees lurking in there a suspicion that the projet is the Fourth Reich in the making. Of course, the paper daren't say so, and I may be misreading this. But is there a touch of the Xenophobe in the europhile Guardian? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 20/07/2013 |
Media: going down or climbing out?
Friday 19 July 2013
For a supposedly leading newspaper, you might expect better photoshopping skills than are displayed by the above picture.
Now this, as you may guess, is about UKIP, and it is fair to say that all political parties need well-focused criticism, just to keep them on their toes. But, for all the provocative artwork, Iain Martindoesn't deliver. UKIP is a flash in the pan, is his thesis, or perhaps going down the pan without so much as a flash.
But then Martin doesn't really have his heart in the criticism business. He's playing a different game, the one the Telegraph always plays – driving traffic to the website in order to keep its advertising revenues buoyant.
Like so many political commentators in the legacy media, Martin cannot drag himself away from gossipy personality politics. He seems to have lost the knack of doing fact-based analysis and simply pours out stream of consciousness material that lacks any purpose other than to irritate UKIP members and maximise comments. The more "controversial" he is, the more comments he gets, the more the comments, the higher the traffic. The higher the traffic, the better the revenue. Never mind the quality – or content – just count the hits. So, while there are plenty of good reasons for criticising the one-man-band Farage, and his cult masquerading as a political party, Martin the gossip doesn't lay a finger on them. But he's filled a space between the adverts and will probably reach 1,000 comments by the close of business. And, that is what he is paid to do. Reverting to a form with which EU Ref is more comfortable, one has to ask, therefore, whether there is any possibility that the picture is actually showing Farage climbing out of the potty to make room for Iain Martin to put his journalism where it really belongs. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/07/2013 |
Media: self-censorship on the EU
Friday 19 July 2013
 Howsoever, Mary Ellen (or M E, as she calls herself) makes a serious point in a serious way. Although the Bruges Group poll, finds that most people – given a choice – would prefer EFTA to the EU, as a way of belonging to the Single Market, the British press, with the one exception of the Daily Express have decided that you should not know this. Even to this day, the Express is on its own in reporting the poll finding as news. But what M E reports is that the European Commission, which produces a Daily Press Review, making up a 250-300 page printed bundle of stories from newspapers, is very often reluctant to draw attention to her stories. Yesterday, though, she noted on page 194 of the review a page copied from the Daily Express: "Call to leave the EU is backed by 71%". The poll was commissioned by the very serious Bruges Group, so she reckoned: "Well, that's an important story. How'd I miss that on the news websites this morning?" In this, she had assumed a similar sort of headline was in the other British papers. Except she now realises it wasn't. She saw the story, whoever who read the Express saw the story - and more to the point, the eurocrats running the press review felt the poll was important enough that even the boss-eurocrats at the top of headquarters had to see the story. But almost nobody else did, if they relied on the legacy media. As far as we can see, just the one paper carried the poll. Says M E, "I have no answer for why the others did not. Have they got summer work-experience interns running the news desks or what?" It is that "or what?" that worried me. I've been around the block a few times, sufficient to have developed a fairly well-developed news sense. I thought it was an important story. The several people who sent me e-mails alerting me clearly thought likewise. The Express thinks the story was important, the Commission did, M E certainly does and Booker – who is running it on Sunday – agrees. But the rest of the media, when it concerns a poll that finds people would prefer the "Norway Option", despite their masters telling them otherwise, suddenly finds the story completely lacks any news value. This, in my view, cannot be coincidental. We have here another wicked example of self-censorship. It suggests a media which is more interested in shaping the debate than retailing the news. We've saidthat before but it really cannot be repeated often enough that the media are not our friends. COMMENT: "CONTROLLING THE DEBATE" THREAD Richard North 19/07/2013 |
EU Referendum: controlling the debate
Friday 19 July 2013
 Yet, the better-informed readers of this blog were examining this issue nearly a month ago, coming to roughly the same conclusion, but on the basis of a more thorough evaluation of the evidence. But it is quite usual for the legacy media to come late to the game, preening itself over its own perspicacity and assuming that it is the only player, working on the basis that nothing is news or important until their writers have given it their imprimatur. In the Statesman, Mylles largely rests his case on the improbability of the Conservatives taking office at the next election, then assuming that the victors – Labour and the Lib-Dems – will not be offering an "in-out" referendum during the next term. However, even Mylles acknowledges that a new treaty is likely, which would perforce trigger a UK referendum under current provisions. Without fully understanding the context, though, Mylles goes on to speculate on a possible result, arguing that people "would reluctantly perhaps, vote to stay [in] ". This is the sort of lame appreciation you get when the writer is not master of his brief. Any such referendum would not be an "in-out", but a "yes-no", asking the electorate to accept of reject the treaty on the table. Most likely, the UK government will have gone through the ritual of securing opt-outs but, with the Tories out of office, they most likely will be joining the "no" campaign, alongside the rump of what was once UKIP. The chances are, therefore, that the "no" campaign will prevail. That, of course, won't take us out of the EU, but the "colleagues" are not going to allow a British rejection wreck their treaty. They will go ahead, from which will emerge a formalised two-tier Europe, with Britain in the EU's exit lounge. From there, we are looking at a 2020 general election, and then an "in-out" referendum will be on the cards. And with nearly ten years to prepare an exit plan – the last ten wasted years will no matter so much. We have an opportunity to recover lost time.
But what is becoming increasingly evident is that an open debate is not going to happen in the legacy media. Their interests lie in sucking up to the EU and the establishment, while most of their writers simply do not have the skills or understanding to make useful - or even interesting - contributions. Most days, we have half a dozen people on our forum who know more about the EU than the entire press corps.
Where the legacy media – and their political handmaidens – will try to rig the debate is in ignoring and then excluding commentary from dissident sources.
EU Referendum and other independent bloggers will not get a look in, any more than Defence of the Realm got quoted when it was producing ground-breaking material at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. The media will rush to "safe" but ill-informed sources such as "Open Europe" for their tired and predictable renta-quotes.
Despite this, I am quite encouraged. With Booker and a few other stalwarts pitching in, we have managed to put Article 50 on the map – despite the frenzied opposition from the "trapists" and other children.
And, despite the determination of the media to control the argument, I am confident we will lodge the "Norway Option" as a central part of the debate. That leaves the lightweight commentary to the legacy media, but whether Left or Right, their ability to trivialise the issues and miss the point will render them irrelevant.
For all their noise, their lazy self-congratulation and their arrogance, I'm pretty much convinced - more a feeling than hard evidence - that their influence is waning. They are not in control any more. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/07/2013 |
Posts
