23rd October 2021
On the podcast I did this week I averred that commentary is overrated.
PODCAST: What does the tragic killing of David Amess mean for democracy? And confirmation that the UK was always going to break the NI protocol.
Guest @davidallengreen joins @Dorianlynskey @rosamundmtaylor & @sturdyAlex on this week's show.
Listen: https://t.co/jzLjNohha7 pic.twitter.com/090yWMT54v
— Oh God, What Now? – the politics podcast (@OhGodWhatNowPod) October 22, 2021
*
This may seem odd coming from, well, a commentator.
But then again, perhaps a commentator is well placed to realise their own lack of importance.
*
Many people read or listen to commentators to affirm views that they already hold.
Some do so to adopt views.
And a few may do so to challenge views – like Remainers who follow a Brexiter or vice versa.
Yet – generally – there is little a commentator can offer that an intelligent person cannot work out for themselves.
So in respect of this blog, posts like do not add a great deal.
Where commentary often adds value is when the commentator is in a special position to explain or analyse a certain thing.
So posts on this blog that take apart a case or some other document, or provide a guide to some law or policy phenomenon, can be useful.
And although such posts take time and are at a opportunity cost, such posts are far more satisfying to write.
But unless commentary adds something to a point that the reader or listener could not work out for themselves then the commentary has little value.
However much it affirms what you already think.
*
This is partly why there is currently a mild crisis among columnists.
Once upon a time a columnist – literally – was employed to fill a column of space in a newspaper.
As such, the columnist was a poor third behind adverts and news (and good news reporting was – and is – expensive).
A columnist would be expected to provide copy on a regular (usually weekly) basis, with each opinion lasting (say) 800 words.
And this would be regardless of whether the topic addressed was complex or simple.
But this exercise was, of course, artificial.
Not every topic warrants exactly 800 words.
And some weeks there may be more things to set out a view about, and some weeks there may not be anything worth commenting about.
There was little choice for the columnist, for that was the nature of the medium.
Same length, once a week, every week, same time every week.
Now, with the internet, there is little use for the general regular commentator.
Expert analysis and commentary is a few clicks away on any emerging topic.
A generalist has little or nothing to add.
And so that is why some columnists are giving up, and they are not being replaced.
That is also why some topics – for example the supposed ‘woke’ debate and various moral panics – get undue prominence, as they provide fodder for columnists, either for or against or tutting at both.
*
I commentate here on a daily basis partly for the selfish purpose of forcing myself to write every day.
I also commentate on a daily basis as it forces me to get my mind around some law and policy topic – and so it helps prevent intellectual laziness.
And, as I averred some time ago, there is perhaps a public good in setting out contemporaneous criticism of law and policy, even though law makers and policy makers disregard the criticism.
But the one motivation I do not have as a commentator is the hope and expectation of it actually ever making any practical difference.
The same old mistakes will still be made in the same old way – even if there are new labels for the follies.
So although I will carry on commentating at this blog and elsewhere (though less on Twitter), I do aver it is an overrated activity.
And I am therefore grateful to those of you who read and support this blog, as this enables me to continue doing this instead of other things (or instead of doing nothing at all).
****
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Thank you, David, for your honesty and analysis. Oh how we lack analysis from our press and media. I appreciate your efforts and experience, so please don’t give up!
I would dispute a couple of your points here and defend commentators:
1) You aver that “generally – there is little a commentator can offer that an intelligent person cannot work out for themselves”. Maybe true, but that doesn’t mean that all said intelligent people ever would make the time to work it out. In fact, often I read things here that I wouldn’t ever work out for myself because I am not sufficiently aware of them.
2) “one motivation I do not have as a commentator is the hope and expectation of it actually ever making any practical difference”. Depends on what you mean by a practical difference. If through reading your commentary a number of people are better informed about certain topics, that increase in knowledge is arguably a practical difference in itself. Sure, it might not drive an immediate change in, say, government policy, but ‘every little helps’.
“I am therefore grateful to those of you who read and support this blog”. This is mutual – thank you for taking the time!
Dear David,
Your comments and insight are always valued. Do please keep up your valuable work. It helps all of us.
Best wishes
Colin
Dear David,
I find your commentaries very informative and instructive as are those of other legal commentators. As I have no legal training, they provide me with legal and other related information in a way that I can understand. I can then, to a degree, evaluate the the particular matter concerned . Then I might be able to either confirm or change my view of the matter with as little personal bias as possible. You are a great help to me and I much appreciate the time and effort you must put in. Please don’t stop.
First of all I would like to thank you for your commentary which I regard very highly.
Although I can see your point that there is very little or no direct impact on events that would be generated by commentary I would say that it can help to have better informed views, rather than just views that align with one’s political interests. Not that this would necessarily change anything, but more people being able to articulate better and more succinctly is something that only can have a positive overall impact at least on the culture and perhaps some of the outcome of political debates, at least over time.
One could also ask the question the other way – what is it that makes that the powerful in many countries around the world tend to try to suppress commentary, often to the point that columnists are threatened with violence or death. The capacity to challenge the views of the powerful with informed reasoning is certainly something they fear and hence their authoritarian instinct is to mute critical commentary as much as possible.
My own experience is that I have turned to blogs and twitter to find better information than the mainstream media are offering, not least since especially mainstream television has become a battleground of the culture wars that are going on in this country at the moment and as a result they have become much less reliable in their reporting that I personally often find too one-sided and insular, too limited in its scope to give background information, or too accommodating or even rose-tinted when it comes to ideological propositions that would have been shocking to most people just a few years ago.
Hoping, no, trusting this isn’t too irksome.
This is your blog – within legal constraints, you can do pretty much as you please.
All’s well and good.
That you pontificate on someone’s arcane legal matters, Parliamentary matters and Brexit matters is interesting too. Thing is, most of the commentary here is pretty much from a high end ( as in high church) liberalism – which is part of your wider agenda too I suspect?
Me, I don’t agree much with your brand of liberalism – it’s too aligned to the Guardian for my liking.
No, the reason I read and occasionally comment is that it gives me an insight into the liberal agenda – it’s for the most part, intelligent writing and for that, I’m grateful.
Keep on writing & a tad irkingly , keep tilting at the windmills – that’s what they’re for.
ps: I had a letter published in the FT on Wednesday -I just love having my views published in a quality national daily.
I hear you, John. But I want to leave my grand children with the justice, freedoms and fairness I grew up with. I see those being eroded and it worries me. It worries me also that the means of change ie parliamentary democracy, is being hijacked towards a one party state. Some of us know where that leads.
Pat, extremely valuable points made.
I view this Parliament & Government ( including the preceding Parliament and Government ) that helped get us ( our society) in this state as bad to appalling.
Mind you the US and certainly EU isn’t ,in reality, doing much better.
I’d like to think we’re going through ephemeral times – maybe I was too optimistic that Brexit benefits would occur more swiftly.
Only time will tell.
I agree with everyone above – please keep at it. (But just FYI – doing nothing is actually pretty OK. Try it out occasionally.)
Doesn’t it depend on the quality of the commentary and the degree to which the reader has an open mind? Twitter largely fails on both counts, which is why I abandoned it after trying it for a few months. It’s also why you might encourage irksomeness (if such a word exists).
I think you’re underestimating what you’re doing (and what others doing similar things are doing). On my main blog (I’ve got multiple) I share a daily picture of my favourite place, a place I and many others love. It gives my viewers (which number a fraction of your reader numbers) a brief daily escape, a brief moment of hope and enjoyment allowing them to forget all their troubles.
Commentators and experts (no, we haven’t got enough of experts) help thousands if not millions of us to keep going despite all the despair and incompetence around us. Yes, we might be able to figure some of this our ourselves, but it helps if an expert (or at least someone who knows what they’re talking about) confirms what we’re thinking and provides some deeper insight we might not have (or not have the time for). It helps us to not feel alone. It helps to see that others think the same (or at least similar) to us in a world that seems to be driven by ignorance and followers of conspiracy theories.
I also feel that commentaries like yours still influences public discourse and ultimately influences the discussion. If you were all to fall silent what would stop the people in power if there was nobody questioning and challenging their actions?
Jim, you say/ask “I also feel that commentaries like yours still influences public discourse and ultimately influences the discussion. If you were all to fall silent what would stop the people in power if there was nobody questioning and challenging their actions?”
I believe good government of whatever colour depends upon good opposition. Say no more! So, we must rely upon you, David, et al to analyse the current debacle in policy making and the justice system for posterity because we need to be well informed. More and more, as MPs become weaker and weaker, we rely upon action through the courts to challenge their weaknesses in the laws and policies they allow through, often without debate. Let’s hope some policy makers read your analysis and grow some backbone. Thank you, David
Firstly thank you for your blog, it is always interesting and informative. As for whether it makes any difference – maybe. I suspect some government wonk does keep an eye on the better blogs if only to check whether HMG has been rumbled.
There does seem a depressing predictability to the MSM, Monday – nothing, Tuesday & Wednesday maybe something, Thursday nothing, Friday warmed up dross for the colour supplements, repeat ad nauseam. Add in random events as condiments.
Sadly the blogosphere has over the years become more constrained. Some of the old stagers have died off but I suspect the old NHS blogs or Secret Civil Servant and Secret Policeman blogs had been given the gipsy’s warning and never replaced. The Twittersphere is alleged to be ‘the place’ but I have not seen much evidence.
The MSM seems to have become more homogenous. The tabloids can be ignored, the Tgraph & Mail are the habitat of hasbeen MPs and wannabe MPs all suitably obedient. The Graun fulfils its role as a small dissenting voice, The Times hides its light (such as it is) under a bushel and the Beeb does its best to be heard. Even a look at Die Welt, Le Monde etc is not much more informative and WaPo seems a shadow of its former self.
I even forked out a sub to a well known ‘quality’ paper, if only to vent my spleen. That paper is not too bad but the comments are nothing special. Your blog does have a good standard – mine excepted.
I think you do yourself a dis-service. What you do add that I couldn’t work out for myself, is the legal side, both your knowledge of law and constitution and your rigidly logical way of interpreting it. So please keep going!
Please don’t give up! I rely on your posts to help me get my head around some of those very complex current events, especially those involving law and policy. Your posts are also very diverting, which is more important than ever. It has been know for me to laugh out loud at some of the more comic posts!
Hi David, I think you do yourself down. I read your comments to fill the gaps in my knowledge specifically about the legal ramifications of current affairs.
I would also hope that there will be, somewhere in the corridors of power, someone who takes note.
Kind regards
Nick
Hello David,
Regarding your thoughts as expressed in ‘A commentator explains….’ of 23rd Oct, I very much appreciate your commenting on current issues. My professional background is mainly in marine ecology and fisheries, so your commentary is informative to me, it “adds something”. It improves my understanding and your concise style helps sieve through the noise and bluster. As a result, the insight gained helps keep worry at bay. For me, ignorance is not bliss. Thank you for your commentary