« "Black Wednesday": two paradoxes | Main | A Tory case for delaying cuts »

September 18, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e2017744d183db970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Counterproductive campaigns:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Simon

Do you really think the campaign is an example of Feminazism? Seems to me quite reasonable, although Orr's article leaves something to be desired.

Billy Bollocks

Simon, I dont think Chris does but I think Sun readers generally do.

Luis Enrique

it's often observed - and I sometimes agree - that there's a good deal that is counter productive about left-wing political movements who might wish to draw support from working class voters, yet whose public manifestations (The Guardian, etc.) frequently express nothing but disdain for the choices and opinions of (a great proportion of) the working classes.

chris

@ Simon - Billy's right. I don't think it's feminazism (and the campaign tries to distance itself from such censoriousness). But Sun readers would think the dropping of page 3 a concession to such feminazism, and it's their opinion that counts.

Simon

Thanks for your responses everyone. I certainly agree with Luis and Chris more generally. Left wing causes are persistently ruined by their messengers (IE Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann here in the US and select Guardian writers in the UK). The problem, I think, is that Social Democracy is not enough. When creative socialist ideals come back and speak to workers commodification, there will be a resurgence.

Ralph Musgrave

Muslim protests do more to discredit Muslims “than that idiotic video did”? Not at all. The protests (and the cancellation of the Channel 4 film on Islam last week because of threats from Muslims) has produced a few murmurs of disapproval by the West’s intellectuals. But that’s it. The protests and threats have done wonders for the Muslim cause: just as Hitler’s rallies in the 1930s were a unsubtle message to all and sundry as to who controls the streets.

Germans used patronising phrases like “emotional maturity of a four-year-old child” about Hitler, till it was too late.

And why does the author of the above article roll the words feminism and Nazi together, but not the words Islam and Nazi? After all the levels of violence imposed by Muslims on authors, cartoonists and film producers are much nearer Nazi behaviour than anything feminists have done. Reason was that the author of the article didn’t want his throat slit.

Muslims hef veys of making Western intellectuals tow their line. And western intellectuals, given their jelly like backbones, are clicking their heels and doing what they’re told to do. Muslims’ campaign hasn’t backfired at all.

BenSix

I'm not sure the protestors were bothered by how people think about Islam but how they speak about it. If they've intimidated people into being less critical then it won't have been counterproductive at all.

Page 3, meanwhile, is, of course, a sordid little feature but I sometimes look at the campaigns that occupy our attention and then the problems that our world faces and picture Edwardians fretting about the positions of chairs on ocean liners...

Account Deleted

The equivalence of the two campaigns is amusing but misleading. The "Innocence of Muslims" protests are not a narrow attempt to have the video suppressed, any more than the 1989 fatwa against Rushdie was a literary critique. This is just opportunism as part of a wider grievance. The intended audience is not in the US.

The significance of the Page 3 protest, which is highly specific (there is no assumption you thereby sign up for any other views, despite the feminazi caricature), is that it asks the readers to think about what it is and why they are assumed to want it (which was Deborah Orr's point). Why is Tracey from Essex topless OK while Kate from Berkshire isn't?

In that sense, the two campaigns are chalk and cheese. What they have in common is the instant dismissal of their claims as worthless of any consideration.

PS: Luis, the Guardian isn't remotely left-wing. That's why they disdain working class voters.

Keith

Campaign is used ambiguously here.

A "Campaign" can mean an attempt to change some ones mind by argument and debate or organised or spontaneous attempts at intimidation. The protests over a film about the founder of a religion are intimidation opposing page 3 is presumably attempts at persuasion. Neither may work but successful intimidation involves different issues then persuasion. Namely your ability to mobilise force by appealing to fanaticism. There is a perfectly legitimate reason to dislike fanaticism and be opposed to it. But it is less easy to do anything practical about it so Ralph may be being unfair to intellectuals western or otherwise.

Ress- Mogg etc probably do not persuade anyone; the reason they go on the TV is to repeat the errors their unthinking tory base believe in. So like much contemporary politics persuasion is not the objective. It is about representing tribal allegiances and shared ideological bias.
Off course MPs and other people who commentate on policy should know what they are talking about by doing the work involved in discovering facts. But the political system seems to contain no mechanism to require it of them.

Simon

@ Fromarse. Curious what being left wing would mean for you. I don't ask rhetorically, as I'm genuinely interested.

Nina

Muslims continuously give people reason to speak ill of Islam by their constant erratic and disruptive behavior. They should learn to express their disapproval of any negative comment or portrayal of Islam without being violate.

Simon

"Muslims continuously give people reason to speak ill of Islam by their constant erratic and disruptive behavior. They should learn to express their disapproval of any negative comment or portrayal of Islam without being violate."

Lol. Outgroup homogeneity bias much?

Chris Hadrill

@From arse. The difference: consent and profit. Tracy from Essex consented to and profited from showing her breasts whereas Kate Middleton did not and has not.

Account Deleted

@Simon, left-wing covers a broad range of political opinions, from Fabian gradualism (predistribution being the latest variant) to workers control. Only the near shore of this finds sympathy in the pages of the centrist Guardian, which is committed to cuddly capitalism and middle class mores.

The point is that the UK media spectrum essentially runs from right-wing Labour to bonkers Tory. This flatters the self-proclaimed radicals of the Guardian, who can indulge in timid oscillations between New Labour and the LibDems.

@Chris H, by reducing the issue to the action of an individual in a market (the freedom play), or a consideration of privacy (the property play), you are missing the point of the protest. The question is not what Tracey or Kate want, but why the Sun chooses to print topless photos of the one (relentlessly) but not the other.

BenSix

I find it hilarious that Jacob Rees Mogg is allowed onto the television. If I was an official in the Conservatives I'd keep him away from microphones much as you'd keep a toddler away from dynamite.

Dan

"Do you really think the campaign is an example of Feminazism?"

Will, it is a tiny little bit, isn't it? It's Mary Whitehouse if she pretended to be a progressive.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad