« The decline of public service | Main | Against busyness »

December 20, 2016

Comments

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

Stuart

Farage and Trump have both had proper jobs in the private sector.
How does that fit with your hypothesis?

Guano

Indeed.

Note how often political correspondents praise as a "powerful speech" something which is strong on rhetoric and weak on facts and logic (or which is based on a commonly-held misconception of an issue rather than the reality).

Blissex

«projects like Migrant Voice or Unpaid Britain we should listen to more than empty suits and gobshite columnists.»

As to that the book "This is London" by Ben Judah that I have already mentioned is excellent, because it gives *many* anedoctes, plus some relevant statistics.

It is in some ways the modern successor to Henry Mayhew's "London labour and the London poor" of 1861.

Squirrel Nutkin

I am interested that inheriting a large fortune and turning it into a smaller fortune by ego-driven dealmaking counts as a "proper job in the private sector"

From Arse To Elbow

I suspect your appeal will be in vain. The timidity and lack of interest displayed by journalists and economists is due to structural changes more than a "disposition to admire": the growth of the financial sector, the decline of academic tenure, the consolidation of the national media in London (and the upper-middle class), the slow death of local journalism, the substitution of PR for specialist reporting etc, etc.

Appeals to get their boots dirty will no doubt touch a chord with many metropolitan journalists and economists - it being the season of reflection and new resolutions, after all - but this will no more arrest the current direction of travel than Crisis at Christmas solves homelessness.

bdbd

What you're describing can be characterized equally well as either "post-truth reporting" or "post-reporting truth."

Laban

"the ground truth of workplace coercion, wage stagnation and casualization"

Otherwise known as "The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it".

Hence the coalesced capitalist opposition to immigration control.

Seth Edenbaum

"There’s much talk of “post-truth politics” as if it were the sole creation ..."

"Post-truth politics implies the existence of a preferable "truth politics". Truth politics is what comes from the Ministry of Truth. I doubt that's something you want.

"There are scholarly men, to whom the history of philosophy (both ancient and modern) is philosophy itself; for these the present Prolegomena are not written. They must wait till those who endeavor to draw from the fountain of reason itself have completed their work; it will then be the historian's turn to inform the world of what has been done."

"[W]hen we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Emmanuel Kant and Karl Rove

Seth Edenbaum

It's time for journalists to remember their role as advocates. Getting dirty is what lawyers do for a living. When they forget that they lose cases, and clients, and paychecks. Journalists can get wined and dined and paid, regardless. The end up in PR.

a random eman

"Post-truth politics implies the existence of a preferable "truth politics". Truth politics is what comes from the Ministry of Truth. I doubt that's something you want."

Obscurantist nonsense. Because the truth in most matters cannot be known for absolute certain, it doesn't follow that truth doesn't exist or can only be promoted by Orwellian institutions.

Blissex

«Hence the coalesced capitalist opposition to immigration control.»

But according to some Economists, employers make a mistake, because mass immigration from very poor countries does not result in a lower average wage, or even increases the average wage a little.

An explanation some give is that low wage labour is complementary to and not a substitute for high wage labour.

That seems to me a "too clever" argument.

Innocent Abroad

If losing the money your father made is a proper job, then yes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad