http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0 Comments for "Bentley: Government, Media and the Public, " en http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433141 &gt; There's no justification whatsoever for regerding &gt; people (and their aspirations) as dispensible. I agree that peoples aspirations should be respected, but I just think they also should be protected from unreasonable expectations of continuity. There lies inertia and exclusion. Whether we like it or not, change is accelerating (no, it is not some sort of hidden agenda of the state) and we all have to help each other adjust to it. (See Alvin Toffler: Future Shock). &gt; In this case, it's not a question of 'available' &gt; niches, but of showing initiative. I couldn't agree more, the real failure is to identify the coming changes, and prepare for them by identifying the most promising niches and providing the education and infrastructure to exploit them. Unfortunately our current democratic arrangements tend to encourage myopic policy making and knee-jerk reaction, instead of long-term planning. &gt; &gt; I agree - they become called the "unemployable". &gt; But are they unemployable, or is that label a &gt; disparagement intended to blame the victim? Are they &gt; in fact 'unemployable'? And if so, should we simply &gt; abandon them? I in no way intended to disparage the victims - merely the failure to help them avoid becoming "left behind", often as a result of apparently well-meaning initiatives. &gt; Perhaps. But I would point out that people generally &gt; <i>want</i> to work, and show themselves as &gt; productive members of society. Of course - that way lies self-determination, self-respect and independence from the state. &gt; Funny that. I can't bring myself to believe it was &gt; necessarily brutish. My understanding of &gt; pre-industrial societies is that things were quite &gt; relaxed. I've never known a farmer in a hurry. I am certainly no academic, but even talking to local people who spent their formative years in recent farming I don't see any desire to return. Up at 3am, slog all day in wet cold fields and collapse onto a dirty bunk with several other members of the family is often quoted. And this is only going back 30 years in Britain... I know it's not brilliant now, and the above is a gross over-simplification, but all my reading of history indicates to me that we are steadily moving in a positive direction, not the opposite. As you say, this could run and run - thanks to your input I now understand more of the thinking behind some of the things I hear. Does anybody else have any input on this? Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:07:45 +0000 Paul Wilson comment 433141 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433140 &gt; The jobs went as the economy evolved, and as other &gt; countries went to tread where we had gone before. &gt; Remember that those populations often only settled &gt; and grew because the jobs sprung up there in the &gt; first place! I agree the results are messy, and more &gt; could possibly have been done to mitigate the &gt; results, but nobody "stole" the jobs. Not stolen jobs, but stolen future. I'm thinking of the young men who said they aspired to jobs like their fathers and uncles - down the mines, in the shipyards. There are people for whom tradition of this sort means a lot, and when the jobs went, so did their ideas about theirown futures. The point is that care must be taken develop alternative visions. There's no justification whatsoever for regerding people (and their aspirations) as dispensible. &gt; It's truly unfortunate that &gt; &gt; the jobs have gone elsewhere, but it's farcical &gt; that &gt; &gt; the proffered alternatives were call centres and &gt; &gt; retail sales. &gt; &gt; Are these jobs actually worse than the ones they &gt; replaced? Mining, steel works, textile factories? Yes, they're worse. IMHO, of course. But nonetheless. &gt; The jobs weren't "proferred", they were allowed to grow. &gt; When an economy loses competitiveness through &gt; increased standard of living expectations and slow &gt; productivity growth, it has to grab what niches are &gt; available. It is a tough world out there, there are &gt; no easy get-outs. This is where your argument is new to me, and will require some longer consideration. However, I am suspicious of the 'allowed to grow'. As you might expect. I also think the grabbing of available niches is both more <i>and</i> less than you're suggesting here. I don't see call centre development as something that just happened to come along and the choice was limited to grabbing the opportunity or letting it pass. This would be similar to the Midland motor industry - which could hold out for a suitor like BMW and Rover, and then undergo further trauma, or, if someone had shown initiative at the right level, the local talent could have turned itself to other niches. After all, the motor industry grew out of the bicycle industry, which grew out of the tubing industry, which grew out of the gunsmithing industry. In this case, it's not a question of 'available' niches, but of showing initiative. &gt; I agree - they become called the "unemployable". But are they unemployable, or is that label a disparagement intended to blame the victim? Are they in fact 'unemployable'? And if so, should we simply abandon them? &gt; Society has managed to convince them that the world &gt; owes them a living. Perhaps. But I would point out that people generally <i>want</i> to work, and show themselves as productive members of society. The difficulty arises around the ethos of a particular job. I don't think I would make a good cop/spook/soldier even if I wanted to, as I'm too anarchic/bloody-minded/inattentive to work within a regimented profession. I also wouldn't make a good decorator/window installer, as I'm too diligent (i.e. slow). These are not ethical issues <i>per se</i>, but involve notions of one is 'fit' to do. As with the sons of miners. ------- &gt; I'm afraid I don't subscribe to this rosy view of the &gt; past - for most people life was immediate, brutish &gt; and short, populated by brief moments of joy and &gt; human warmth and the occasional wondering if things &gt; could get better... That's where we come in. Funny that. I can't bring myself to believe it was necessarily brutish. My understanding of pre-industrial societies is that things were quite relaxed. I've never known a farmer in a hurry. Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:14:28 +0000 dglp comment 433140 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433139 &gt; I think people would tolerate <i>less</i> financial &gt; security if they had more control over their lives. &gt; Isn't this what contractors, independent consultants &gt; and small business owners do? Agreed, but I think financial security comes first in the hierachy of needs. Those examples you quote usually recognise that financial resources are the best route to self-determination - that's why they do it! Remember that financial success brings the power of control along with it. If you make enough cash, you can invest it and drop right out! &gt; prime victim. I'm thinking here of the 'working class &gt; lads' in factory towns throughout the UK who had &gt; their future stolen from them, and who, in the &gt; intervening decades, have formed a hard core of &gt; disenfranchised citizens. The jobs went as the economy evolved, and as other countries went to tread where we had gone before. Remember that those populations often only settled and grew because the jobs sprung up there in the first place! I agree the results are messy, and more could possibly have been done to mitigate the results, but nobody "stole" the jobs. It's truly unfortunate that &gt; the jobs have gone elsewhere, but it's farcical that &gt; the proffered alternatives were call centres and &gt; retail sales. Are these jobs actually worse than the ones they replaced? Mining, steel works, textile factories? The jobs weren't "proferred", they were allowed to grow. When an economy loses competitiveness through increased standard of living expectations and slow productivity growth, it has to grab what niches are available. It is a tough world out there, there are no easy get-outs. &gt; More to the point, I think that the effort to &gt; establish a flexible labour pool is one element of &gt; the coercion I referred to in my first post. I &gt; suspect that this new labour pool is going to have &gt; significantly fewer 'hard' skills like technical &gt; expertise, and that the country is being set up for a &gt; service economy rather than a research, design, or &gt; manufacturing economy. I don't see any "coercion" I'm afraid - just pragmatic (often misguided) attempts at adjusting to change. I agree that it is sad but true, that the labour displaced when an industry dies is often ill-suited to the next wave of opportunities. Once again, there is no easy fix. By the way, the biggest number of un-fulfilled vacancies exist in the hard skills like technical expertise. &gt; Again, the issue is about whether people feel that &gt; they can see a place for themselves in the portrait &gt; of society that's presented them. I think some people &gt; will resist education if they feel it prepares them &gt; for a life they don't want for themselves. In that &gt; case, some portion of the labour pool will remain &gt; steadfastly redundant. I agree - they become called the "unemployable". Society has managed to convince them that the world owes them a living. Once they have done enough to ensure survival, then they can take stock and make further adjustments later on. Problem is, there are not enough negative incentives to prevent people taking the easy way out and giving up. 150 years ago they would have starved to death (not that I am advocating that now!). &gt; ... better break here. I can see this going on and on. Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:16:07 +0000 Paul Wilson comment 433139 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433138 &gt; &gt; &gt; its most serious mistakes. For example, let's say &gt; &gt; that government presumes that people want a &gt; greater &gt; &gt; degree of financial security than people would &gt; &gt; actually tolerate. &gt; &gt; People will ALWAYS tolerate more financial security! &gt; <b><i>Uh oh.</i></b> I think I said something other than what I wanted to say. But your answer works anyway. I think people would tolerate <i>less</i> financial security if they had more control over their lives. Isn't this what contractors, independent consultants and small business owners do? So the point was that if independence is sacrificed for security, some people end up with neither independence nor security. <i>Ouch.</i> And I am thinking here of the available labour pool and their redundant skills. Earlier, I was using this as an example - one among many possible - of government initiatives that backfire, reducing liberty, reducing the ability to cope with or even comprehend behaviour expected of one. Again, the redundant labour pool would be a prime victim. I'm thinking here of the 'working class lads' in factory towns throughout the UK who had their future stolen from them, and who, in the intervening decades, have formed a hard core of disenfranchised citizens. It's truly unfortunate that the jobs have gone elsewhere, but it's farcical that the proffered alternatives were call centres and retail sales. I believe this wasted some portion of a generation, alientated those people and their communities, and that the chickens are now coming home to roost in that some people are now resisting the notion of flexible labour based on a supposedly transferable set of skills. More to the point, I think that the effort to establish a flexible labour pool is one element of the coercion I referred to in my first post. I suspect that this new labour pool is going to have significantly fewer 'hard' skills like technical expertise, and that the country is being set up for a service economy rather than a research, design, or manufacturing economy. Again, the issue is about whether people feel that they can see a place for themselves in the portrait of society that's presented them. I think some people will resist education if they feel it prepares them for a life they don't want for themselves. In that case, some portion of the labour pool will remain steadfastly redundant. ... better break here. I can see this going on and on. Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:42:19 +0000 dglp comment 433138 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433137 dglp, No, you are not alone - but I suspect there is not a lot of us... I have long gone past the point of protest for the sake of it, so I will answer your points with my attempts to understand how things actually are, rather than just how I think they ought to be. Here goes... &gt; its most serious mistakes. For example, let's say &gt; that government presumes that people want a greater &gt; degree of financial security than people would &gt; actually tolerate. People will ALWAYS tolerate more financial security! It appears that the nature that evolution has left us with only allows us to identify a positive position relative to a lesser one; we do not appear to be happy with the status quo. For example, we are not much interested in security until our food needs are met, and only when we have security can we make time for higher motives such as the approval of others and self esteem. This seems to permeate everything, so steady economic growth has to be a prime target of politicians - else people become dissatisfied. &gt; Let's then say that the &gt; presumption drives policy which shapes the labour &gt; market and actually makes it harder to get a job. It seems to be an unfortunate fact of life that stagnating economic growth will ALWAYS lead to more unemployment eventually, because human ingenuity will always try to improve efficiency leading to less requirement for human labour. The trick seems to be to harness these efficiencies to add value and hence create more spending power which creates more jobs elsewhere. They won't be direct replacements, but you can still have a net gain (witness the steady increase in numbers of jobs where economic growth continues, even when unemployment is not falling much - different people are now working). It may be harder to get certain jobs (or any jobs in the short term) but in a market without excessive labour regulation or barriers to enterprise new jobs will be created. Unfortunately they don't always match the skill set of the available labour pool... Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:20:00 +0000 Paul Wilson comment 433137 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433136 You share my frustration? This is good news. Part of my concern is about whether I am a minority of one, or whether my concerns are shared by something approximating a constituency. It appears that there are two of us. Double the previous number! I want to reply to the points you make, but this will have to wait a bit. My first reaction is that item no. 2 is where I think government is making some of its most serious mistakes. For example, let's say that government presumes that people want a greater degree of financial security than people would actually tolerate. Let's then say that the presumption drives policy which shapes the labour market and actually makes it harder to get a job. People are then presented with circumstances which they have no control over, and are no more secure for it. More later... Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:43:00 +0000 dglp comment 433136 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment-433135 dglp, I share your frustration, but sadly I think you will wait a long time for goverment to start a dialogue with you about the things that concern you! Unless perhaps, the things that would motivate you also start motivating them. It would appear to me that the two main (mostly conflicting) influences on a democratically elected government look something like this: - 1. The possibility of not getting elected again and losing status, power, influence and wealth. They must somehow persuade a numerically significant part of the electorate (and their own political patrons) that they ARE protecting and furthering their interests. If you do not belong to that part, and your interests are in conflict with 2 below, then tough luck. 2. The advice from the civil and military services about policy necessary to preserve the security, and economic stability and growth that is essential to address 1 above. I think we have to assume this is a lot more of a tightrope walk than we are led to believe, as they are unlikely to scare people unnecessarily in case they damage 1. It is easy to see from the above how dissembling, with the risk of being caught out could look increasingly attractive to politicians. The benefits of honesty have to outweigh the costs to change things. I suspect that the underlying tension between these will not allow coherent government until we know what they know, and they know what we know. Surely this is the job of the media, in turn motivated by well educated, curious customers hungry for enlightenment instead of entertainment. Doesn't look good does it? Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:15:53 +0000 Paul Wilson comment 433135 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0 Re: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-92-1723.jsp Bentley’s article is thematically in line with the current BBC Magazine series on cynicism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3491925.stm), and gets a little bit deeper into the issue, but does not mention or address two underlying factors that I think influence the pugilistic, exploitative and cynical behaviour he is concerned about. These factors are the disenfranchised constituent and the refusal to participate. For me, these two things are much more fundamental and much more indicative than the symptoms Bentley focuses upon. They also reinforce each other. Furthermore, both revolve around 'modernisation', or the apparently unstoppable pressure to conform across an increasingly diverse set of behaviours in order to deliver ever greater efficiencies and address an ever-widening range of demands for attention and resources. In short, I do not see a government that actively supports my wish to have a relatively simple, relatively independent and relatively stress-free existence. Whether it’s because of the effort I must make to learn about and conform to rules and regulations, being jolted by hidden taxes, being lumbered with spurious or injurious performance targets, subject to vague and manipulative people specifications, politicised learning outcomes or one of myriad conditions, I find less and less space and time to be the person I want to be. Therefore, I am at odds with those who are defining and delivering this system of coercions. They are not the police, nor the Church, nor the educational/indoctrinal systems, nor even my peers in society, all of whom contribute to the current orthodoxy, but none of whom are in a position to set an agenda and focus resources on shaping the broadest of social activities. Even economic forces are not capable of implementing social change across a broad spectrum. Only government has that ability, and it comes from having a mandate and a set of delivery mechanisms. Yet we see those mechanisms used to subvert the mandate. The legitimacy of government is based on the consent of the governed, and the nature of democracy is supposed to be that the government is responsive to concerns of the electorate. However, we can see government making unpopular decisions without justifying them adequately, thus raising serious doubts as to whose interests it represents. After years and years of malfeasance, government loses its legitimacy and mandate. I am alienated from a government that seems intent on undermining my ability to live in a relatively simple manner. I do not see myself reflected in this government. Even worse, I see that the things I need in order to work and live meaningfully are steadily being devalued, undermined, and dismantled. I see myself at odds with major trends in political, economic and social life. Therefore, I acknowledge the role of government in delivering basic services, but I refuse to honour their initiatives unless they are in keeping with my own values. I am not going along for the ride. In fact, I want a divorce. I do not know whose interests the government is attending to. It isn't my interests. However, I do suspect that the agenda is set by a combination of economic and cultural forces, some of which are holdovers from previous eras, some of which are globalising, and some of which are simply arrogant. With such a deep antipathy between a citizen and government, a ‘new contract between government and media’ isn't relevant. A new contract between a government and the governed is. I know what I want my government to do, and to the extent that it does those things, I am able to see my place in government and communicate with it, and with other people, about my part of the shared truth. But if the government isn't listening, and isn't responding appropriately, then there is no dialogue. When government acknowledges that it makes mistakes and fails some of the time instead of stonewalling, railroading and lying; when it takes the time to listen, and makes room for meaningful response it may then have a dialogue on its hands; it may have a constituency again, and maybe these issues of cynicism and adversarial exploitation will go away. In the meantime, it exploits me and I have an adversarial relationship with it. Whatever happens between media and government is symptomatic of a deeper malaise, and is incidental to those deeper issues. Message was edited 20 Feb<div class="forum-topic-navigation"><a href="/katherine_gun_0" class="topic-previous" title="Go to previous forum topic">‹ Katherine Gun</a> <a href="/democray_0" class="topic-next" title="Go to next forum topic">democray ›</a></div> http://www.opendemocracy.net/bentley_government_media_and_the_public_0#comment Journalism &amp; war media &amp; the net Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:19:23 +0000 dglp 32710 at http://www.opendemocracy.net