There’s a fascinating piece in Joe Trippi’s must-read ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’, where he talks about the power of the internet in forcing the resignation of Trent Lott as Senate Majority Leader. Lott made some comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party effectively saying he wished that Thurmond had won the 1948 election (when he stood on an outright racist/ segregationist ticket). The remarks received little coverage from the mainstream press (apart from ABC) who preferred to focus on Thurmond’s years in the Senate. However, the remarks were picked up on by the blogosphere, which launched a campaign against Lott’s offensive remarks – eventually, and quite rightly, leading to his resignation. The blogosphere was dictating the agenda for the mainstream media, who eventually had little option but to follow the internet’s lead.
I was reminded of this when watching Marr’s question to Brown about prescription drugs and, particularly, his preface that “everybody in Westminster is talking about it.” What this means of course is that it has been the talk of certain elements of the blogosphere for months. Once again the internet and the blogosphere are setting the agenda. It is forcing the mainstream media to tread where previously they would have feared to tread. Does anybody doubt that, if this was the rumour a few years ago, the rumour would have remained the preserve of the press bar at Westminster and it certainly wouldn’t have been discussed on a high profile BBC programme in an interview with the Prime Minister.
For the record, I’m not at all comfortable with where this style of questioning is leading British politics. I don’t like the idea that gossip and innuendo about the Prime Minister can make it to breakfast TV. But the point is that the proliferation of the blogosphere has made such a development inevitable. What was the preserve of the in the know few is now, thanks to blogs and an open source world, openly discussed. The mainstream media is now almost obliged to follow the lead of the blogosphere.
Related posts:
Like you, I’m a bit uncomfortable by Marr’s questioning of Brown, and being manic-depressive doesn’t ease my disquiet.
I’m worried that there may be a Labour agenda at work here, of trying to persuade Brown to resign on health grounds, as Charles Clarke has suggested. And if Conservatives run with that agenda then this could be a bonus for Labour, who could make all sorts of trouble with accusations of discrimination on the grounds of disability. We should look at two of our own: Anthony Eden, whose mental health issues led to his resignation, and Winston Churchill, whose manic depression arguably helped him lead Great Britain to victory.
This was started by a blogger who noted a resemblance between foods Brown had been warned off and the contraindications of MAOIs (mono-amine oxidase inhibitors). Personally I find it difficult to believe that somebody with as important a job as Prime Minister would be prescribed MAOIs and allowed to remain in his position.
Let’s not take our eyes off the ball. We already have a weak point at which to attack Labour, and that is their dismal record of government over the last 12 years. If we attack Brown for taking medication we don’t even know exists, we risk sidelining ourselves.
I think there are two starnds here. The first is, why was it OK to badger David Cameron some years ago about his drug habit, but NOT ok to as Brown effectively a similar question? Both are legitimate, no comment is perfectly legitimate too – until someboct produces a doctors certificate or proof of some sort.
The second strand is surely that we are now all so cynical that we will believe anything of politicians ( and most other people too) which is what the blogosphere works on.