Free speech has its drawbacks

Well, Happy New Year everyone. I hope you had a Christmas that did not leave you too stuffed and has left with you with a sufficient bank balance in order to negotiate the January sales. I hope that 2009 is a rewarding and healthy one for you all.

Apologies for the lack of blogs in the past three weeks or so. Time has been at a premium with the usual pre-Christmas rush of things to do and people to see. I was not helped either by going down with the 'flu for about a week before Christmas. Plenty of it going around it would seem.

There are a few things which I would like to talk about that have been in the news of late and I hope that I will get opportunity to discuss some of these matters in future blog posts.

First things first though. Is it just me or is there a media frenzy these days for the media in any form, be it newspapers, magazines, websites, radio programmes or television programmes to get our opinion on absolutely everything, be it serious topical debate or the completely inane? Turn on Breakfast or GMTV in the morning and to kill the two minutes before cutting to the regional news or the weather and you will get Bill and Sian or Ben and Kate reading out a selection of texts to do with people's opinions on the important story of the day or on something completely trivial, followed by a sentence like "keep your texts coming in" or "we would like to know what you think". Obviously the BBC and ITV have to make money out of texts now that their money making opportunities from suspect competitions have been restricted.

Or, if you turn on the radio, there are entire radio stations devoted to topical debate which would not survive unless the average white van driver or painter and decorator didn't phone in to discuss the state of the economy between jobs. There are also vast numbers of websites out there with discussion forums where people can debate a wide spectrum of topics, depending on what tickles their fancy. Expertise and knowledge of the subject in hand appears to be an optional requirement.

The question is though, does this open invitation for such opinion actually help to have a meaningful debate on important issues, or does it just provide a platform to people who lack the debating skills or indeed the knowledge of the debated subject and which in the end turns the debates into nothing more than pantomimes? Discussions on TV tend to encourage the controversial so to provoke argument, but meaningful conclusions can rarely be drawn from such debates. All the TV companies are looking for are flash points because these will draw people in, everyone likes an old fashioned tear-up, after all and these draw the viewers in. But discussions tend to be rushed so the next topic can be discussed and so no debate ever really reaches a satisfactory conclusion.

Perhaps the worst offenders though are newspaper websites. One daily newspaper encourages its readers to "join the debate", although from memory, the newspaper in question happens to be one that plays with the minds of its readers by scare mongering. But even the quality newspapers provide its readers with the opportunity to contribute comments to any story that they publish online, usually with the proviso that the reader is signed up as a member of their website. This is not a difficult process, as it asks only for your name, e-mail address and for you to provide a username and password, so even someone with the level of intelligence that George W. Bush possesses would be able to sign up.

Now, in one sense this is good because complete strangers can have a debate on any given subject on which they happen to have a mutual interest, if not a shared opinion. But the secret to any such website is that it needs to be moderated. People who post inflammatory remarks or who make comments that deviate from the subject or from the spirit of the use of the comments boxes should have their comments removed. It is not an easy job being a website moderator, as you are seen as a beak, an interfering busybody to compare with traffic wardens or tax collectors. But theirs is a necessary job because otherwise it shows the newspaper whose website it is in a bad light and what started out as a constructive debate turns into a squabble between people of conflicting opinions, but who lack the skills or inclination to debate in a constructive manner.

Generally, the national broadsheet newspapers tend to police the opinion/comments sections of their websites adequately and they encourage free speech while removing anything that is particularly offensive or outrageous. The BBC's website has an even more rigorous process where every post made has to be checked before it is posted on its discussion forums. This goes too far for some people, but clearly free speech is a privilege which some of its beneficiaries choose to abuse through their own ignorance, intolerances or lack of thought.

If you are wondering what particularly stirred me to write about this topic, I would advise you to take a look at The Argus website at www.theargus.co.uk . The Argus, for those who live outside of the Brighton area, is the leading daily newspaper that covers Brighton and Hove and the immediate surrounding area. It reputedly keeps its readers in tune with all the important news in the Brighton area as and when it happens. To give the newspaper its dues, its website does update on a regular basis and any breaking news that occurs during the day very quickly makes it on to their website.

However, if you sense a 'but' coming you would be right. The Argus has become a more sensationalist newspaper in recent years and this is reflected in the way it reports on its stories, often over-dramatising events and also becoming more self-righteous in its editorial pieces, much in the tome you would expect of a national daily tabloid newspaper. If you strip down the nuts and bolts, The Argus has deteriorated in terms of its output in recent years, with over the top headlines, stories of not hugely significant interest and plenty of adverts. I suppose given that people have less time to read the news, this suits them because they can skim read The Argus in a matter of minutes, but it is a sad indictment.

This sensationalist output from The Argus has a knock-on effect as it influences the quality of opinion from its readers and this is particularly evident if you read the comments that get posted in response to the stories carried on The Argus website. I decided to sign up as a member of its discussion forums just before the New Year having been particularly disturbed by the self-righteous and judgemental attitudes voiced by some commentators in response to a story that The Argus had run on its website about a murder victim in the city.

The story related to a man who had been stabbed to death in the early hours in the centre of Brighton. My first reaction on hearing about this was to be shocked that the incident happened about 10 minutes from where I live and in a street that I must walk up and down at least a couple of times a week. Anyway, The Argus reported that people living near the scene had heard a commotion a few minutes earlier and that a drunk sounding person was heard to sing football songs in the vicinity.

Now, no-one can really be sure what led to the circumstances of the man's murder until further evidence comes to light and any prosecution takes place. But, due to The Argus rather helpfully reporting this commotion, it has led to the amateur Poirots amongst The Argus's readership to go online and stick in their two penneth, including saying that the victim "must have asked for trouble", in some way assuming that the victim was singing the songs in question, some asking "why was he out at that time of night?" as the murder supposedly occurred in the early hours of the morning while another upon reading that the victim was unemployed, asked why the victim was out drinking at that time of night when he wouldn't have an income to do so, when there is no firm evidence to suggest the person who had been stabbed had been out drinking, but again this had been assumed on the basis of The Argus's article.

These, and other such thought provoking comments can be found in response to the story that The Argus originally ran on this subject, while a comment from joeinbrighton can also be read which asked that The Argus firstly did more to moderate comments on its website so to put a stop to rent-an-idiot putting the world to rights and secondly which asked those who live in greenhouses not to throw stones and to respect the dead and their family and friends, regardless of how they came to be taken from this world, without resorting to cheap shots and snap judgements. I doubt my intervention will make much difference, but these kinds of comments come about as a result of cheap journalism and media who are all too ready to invite opinion without any attention given to quality control.

In fact, I know that my comments in response to the previous article made no difference as I checked back into the Argus website earlier and read some comments in response to another article, this time about a semi-professional footballer who plays for Eastbourne Borough who was admitted to hospital a few days ago after suffering a wound to his head that caused a clot to his brain. From The Argus story it would appear that the footballer in question, Paul Armstrong, was the victim of an attack or a fight in the vicinity of a pub in Crawley which resulted in him receiving this blow to the head which could have had fatal consequences.

I read this article with some interest as a good friend of mine is a team-mate of Mr Armstrong's at Eastbourne Borough and I had wondered why he had not played in a match that I had been to earlier in the week. I don't know Paul Armstrong personally, although I have met him and he would seem to be a nice guy on the surface, so it was sad to hear of his predicament. I hoped that by reading the comments at the bottom of the article there would be a few well wishers who would wish him a complete and speedy recovery. Sadly, there would appear to be a few villages missing their resident idiot.

Perhaps it is inevitable because footballers get so much negative press these days, sometimes rightly, often not so. You hear plenty of stories of top flight footballers getting into scrapes or being greedy, although strangely the papers very rarely report on the vast amounts of work they do for charitable causes and helping the sick and needy, of which there are plenty of examples. I guess that doesn't fit the agenda of the popular press, but because this doesn't get much press coverage, people's perceptions of footballers are obviously distorted because they are only seeing one side of the story.

Anyway, back to the topic. Hot on the heels of the Steven Gerrard story in the national press last week, people no doubt just read the story as being "footballer gets into a fight". As the incident reportedly happened in Crawley so the Argus tell us, and the team that Mr Armstrong represents were playing in Crawley earlier that day, one commentator to the Argus's comments box indicated that this had incited trouble because "Eastbourne had beaten Crawley earlier in the day", or words to that effect. Quite apart from this being factually untrue, as Crawley actually won the match 1-0, what has this got to do with anything? So if you play football against Crawley, you should not have a night out in Crawley afterwards? Quite apart from wondering where you would go for a night out in Crawley, why should someone's profession dictate where they can or cannot have a drink? Admittedly, if Gary Neville went for a night out in Liverpool, I would advise he sports a disguise in order to protect his safety, but Crawley and Eastbourne do not have a hostile rivalry to compare with Liverpool and Manchester United, or Celtic and Rangers.

Because of the Gerrard story breaking so recently, of which no-one knows the full facts, and the catalogue of previous misdemeanours involving top flight players, readers seem to automatically assume that the footballer caused the trouble and that they shouldn't have been out drinking anyway. A few points to consider here. This incident happened a few hours after a match and the team's next match wasn't for another 4 days. Why shouldn't the player be out having a drink? After the adrenalin rush of a match during the day, I'd imagine many footballers, certainly in the semi-pro ranks like to wind down by having a couple of pints and a curry with friends or loved ones in the evening. That doesn't mean they are going to get raving drunk and pick a fight. Secondly, we are talking about a semi-professional player. These are guys who only earn a smidgeon of their income through kicking a ball on a Saturday afternoon and have other jobs too. When you consider the time they spend training on top of doing their regular jobs and packing in plenty of games in a cramped fixture schedule, semi-professional hardly does many of these players justice. They might not have made the grade as a top flight player but they play for the enjoyment of the game.

With this in mind, windows of opportunity to have a drink and to relax do not come around often during the year. Even over Christmas, semi-pro footballers do not get the luxury of a couple of weeks off that many office workers do because the tradition of football in this country is that Boxing Day and New Year's Day matches are the best attended in the season. They are as much part of the Christmas tradition as turkey sandwiches or tinsel. With a few day's grace and in the aftermath of a match, it really shouldn't be seen as a big deal that a player is out having a drink, or minding his own business. You somehow expect that there are some people who expect players to live the life of a monk between matches, but I would invite them to join the real world.

However Paul Armstrong came to be on the receiving end in this incident, it seems churlish to point the finger at him just because of his profession. Again, the full facts of this have not been reported, but surely the main thing is that someone has been the victim of a crime that has been perpetrated by someone else. Instead of the self-righteous questioning people's lifestyle choices, it would be much better if they just condemned the fact that a simple pleasure such as a night out seems not to be possible sometimes because of the actions of the minority. I would like to wish Paul Armstrong a full and speedy recovery, I wonder if The Argus would like to do the same.

Through flicking through other news stories on The Argus website you will no doubt come across other examples of bright sparks thinking they know it all and judging people without having any idea. They do it because they can, as there are no repercussions. The Argus's website seems sadly lacking in any form of moderation and people seem to be able to say pretty much what they want to, as long as it is not racist. Because there is no moderation and no checking of posts, what deterrent is there for people who want to abuse the privilege of free speech in order to spout absolute garbage?

The Argus have helped to create this monster in this instance through their sensationalist headline writing, although as I said at the beginning, I feel this is part of a much wider trend. There is an insatiable appetite amongst all media for the public's opinions to be heard. But the demand for opinion on a whole raft of subjects far outweighs the actual supply of opinions that are considered, balanced and well thought out. The rest of the opinions are formed as a result of what is read in newspapers or on websites, or which they hear or see on television and this coverage is often distorted or leads its audience to form a certain conclusion, depending on their own agendas. People are either too lazy or not well informed enough to think out of the box and so they assume what they read is gospel and this forms their opinion.

This just creates a vicious circle and so cheap news results in cheap opinions. I think it is what is called Garbage In, Garbage Out in computer programming circles. We live in times where we have less time to absorb the news and so want to take in the news in a snapshot. By taking in our news in digestible chunks, it stands to reason that some of the little crumbs commonly known as the facts get dropped on the cutting room floor somewhere. This, allied with the advent of there being 24 hour news and opinion TV and radio channels who have the same items regurgitating each hour and need opinions to fill time results in opinions becoming cheaper in value, if not in price. After all, a text to complain about the day's hot potato costs at least the standard network rate. And what do you end up having to show for it? As a wise man once said, the worst thing about the world are the people who inhabit it.

Anyway, let me know what you think. E-mails should be free and texts will be charged for at the discretion of your network operator.