Education by evensong

Noth­ing enshrines so com­pletely the idea of decline as an Eng­lish cathed­ral. Mil­len­nial in age, monu­mental in scale, metic­u­lous in dec­or­a­tion, the cathed­ral is ded­ic­ated to a medi­eval deity. A god of build­ings, wor­shipped through spires and fly­ing but­tresses and arches, feared through plaster paint­ings of dev­ils and awed in roof bosses carved with angels and apostles. A god built by masons and mor­tar. A god now gone.

Meso­pot­amian zig­gur­ats and Mayan pyr­am­ids may have been aban­doned to jungle and desert but the church and the Eng­lish county town allowed cathed­rals their con­tinu­ance. There were no longer cowls in the cloisters, nave walls were scrubbed of paint, brasses lif­ted from the fam­ily tombs, and now dead dukes and earls interred them­selves by pref­er­ence in chapels on their grand estates.

But the church, like ivy, covered up the ambu­lat­ory and tran­septs, its ritual curled along the grave stone pav­ing, up to the great wooden doors that would no longer open to a crowd.

Into the mouth of this god­less cav­ern, divorced from its estates, its wealth, and its power, I came, aged six years old, clutch­ing my father’s hand. Together we walked alone to the song school, down the dark arcade sep­ar­ated from the nave by the worn black tombs of bish­ops. How like an Angel came I down! How bright are all things here! When first among His works I did appear. O how their glory me did crown!

The church wanted unhappy little boys to sing for god and, in return, it would edu­cate them. My father did not real­ize that I was Isaac in this bar­gain. God provided no altern­at­ives. Closer than my hand, he held his own unhap­pi­ness and dis­ap­point­ment. And what, after all, do little boys know of sacrifice?

Bul­ly­ing was worn with the same resig­na­tion as the sur­plice and the ruff. The kick and the rab­bit punch on blind corners in pro­ces­sion, the swinging of the heavy sil­ver medals of choral office ensured that the very young­est would arrive swal­low­ing their tears, swear­ing dur­ing the gos­pel read­ing to carry for­ward the pun­ish­ment to the next arrivals. Bul­ly­ing was only the back­ground noise of boy­hood, the 32′ pipe in our incess­ant, futile fugue.

This was my edu­ca­tion: to stand in a build­ing aban­doned by its ideo­logy, kept alive by shadow priests and shadow con­greg­a­tions, and wonder.

ALMIGHTY God we con­fess that we have sinned against Thee and against our fel­low men, in thought and word and deed, in the evil we have done and in the good we have not done, through ignor­ance, through weak­ness, through our own delib­er­ate fault.

The good we have not done.” Every good act pre­cluded a host of bet­ter acts. Even to con­tem­plate the order of actions and their good­ness was to risk being plunged into a cycle of eval­u­ation and pro­cras­tin­a­tion: the oppor­tun­ity cost of good­ness. The impossib­il­ity of good­ness. The require­ment for worship.

We knew the psalms by length and dreaded day 15. The longest. Every prayer, every liturgy, every les­son passed before us. Lent. Easter. Whit­sun. Pente­cost. The long weeks of Trin­ity. Advent. Christ­mas. Epi­phany. Saints days and Sundays.

For an hour each even­ing, any­one with a mind to could have come to listen to the anthemic coun­ter­point of Palestrina or Byrd, or the mags and nuncs from England’s age of empire — Stan­ford in G, Bair­stow in D, Sum­sion in A.

But in the even­ings, nobody came. The green-bound, fine-leaved pages of the Eng­lish Hym­nal were left unthumbed. The kneel­ers — boldly pat­terned and strongly stitched — were unneeded. We sang for a few small mat­rons in sens­ible shoes who strode to their sta­tions. They posi­tioned them­selves like chess pieces, Staunton queens, always leav­ing enough space between to avoid capture.

The choir filled the stalls, dec and can. We would still have been obliged to sing for no one. These were the rites. Our songs were the sands engulf­ing the colossal wreck. Noth­ing beside remained.

This then was my edu­ca­tion, con­scrip­ted into choral ser­vitude, to serve a church that clung to a build­ing whose stone tri­forium dwarfed its influ­ence, and mocked its min­istry. The cur­riculum was decline: the sud­den end­ing of a high ascent; pro­gress and its reversal. The les­sons were in drowned poly­phony; the ines­cap­able pun­ish­ment of being made to be present, to prac­tise and per­form and wit­ness every night the same. I am poured out like water. My country.

Democracy after journalism

I sup­pose the title reveals my con­cerns, which are more about the former than the lat­ter. We’ll be talk­ing about it in Per­u­gia this week at the Inter­na­tional Journ­al­ism Fest­ival.

Here’s a read­ing list:

Journ­al­ism was long ago seen as a fourth estate, an extra-parliamentary rep­res­ent­at­ive cohort.

In 19C polit­ical the­ory, the press is seen as a neces­sary ele­ment in a rep­res­ent­at­ive democracy.

In the ancient world, though there might be, and often was, great indi­vidual or local inde­pend­ence, there could be noth­ing like a reg­u­lated pop­u­lar gov­ern­ment bey­ond the bounds of a single city-community; because there did not exist the phys­ical con­di­tions for the form­a­tion and propaga­tion of a pub­lic opin­ion, except among those who could be brought together to dis­cuss pub­lic mat­ters in the same agora. This obstacle is gen­er­ally thought to have ceased by the adop­tion of the rep­res­ent­at­ive sys­tem. But to sur­mount it com­pletely, required the press, and even the news­pa­per press, the real equi­val­ent, though not in all respects an adequate one, of the Pnyx and the Forum. (John Stu­art Mill, Con­sid­er­a­tions on Rep­res­ent­at­ive Gov­ern­ment, 1861)

The press is no good in the role hav­ing been cap­tured by cor­por­ate interests, UK edi­tion (Julian Pet­ley, Fourth Rate Estate).

The press could never ful­fill the role since cit­izens can never play the role deman­ded of them by demo­cractic the­ory (Jorn Hen­rik Petersen, Lippmann Revis­ited, 2003).

The “informed cit­izen” (i.e. the con­sumer of journ­al­ism) is not a require­ment of demo­cracy (Michael Schud­son America’s Ignor­ant Voters, 2000)

The decline in the journ­al­ism industry is not a crisis for demo­cracy.

Journalism’s role is import­ant and worthy of pub­lic fund­ing.

Please add any inter­est­ing links in the comments.

The price of blogging

In the mid-2000s City University’s Journ­al­ism school — well me, to be pre­cise — had a num­ber of con­ver­sa­tions with the Bahraini author­it­ies about journ­al­ism edu­ca­tion, in the con­text of a more open and robust polit­ical cul­ture. The con­ver­sa­tions began with an approach by a junior mem­ber of the rul­ing fam­ily, a former aca­demic of lib­eral inclin­a­tion who wanted to do some­thing to sup­port change.

As a journ­al­ist with CBS News, I was depor­ted from Bahrain back in 1992 so I was a little wary of their enthu­si­asm. (The Inform­a­tion Min­is­ter Dr Tariq Alo­moayyed summoned me to his office and asked why I had entered Bahrain on a tour­ist visa: “No one comes to Bahrain as a tour­ist, Mr Monck.”)

But in the mid-2000s, the small king­dom seemed to be slowly open­ing up. The old king and his min­is­ters were gone. Exiles had been recalled.

One of the more encour­aging signs was a tol­er­ance of digital dis­sent, embod­ied by blog­gers like Ali Abd­ulemam, who ran bahrainonline.org . The Wall Street Journal (art­icle here) noted Abdulemam’s blog as a pointer to pro­gress in the Gulf. He was part of the Global Voices network.

The con­ver­sa­tion about journ­al­ism edu­ca­tion car­ried on for a year or two, went up the offi­cial chain of com­mand, and even­tu­ally went cold. The prom­ise of a more robust polit­ical cul­ture cooled too. That chill brought not only silence, it also brought arrest and impris­on­ment for some.

Today Ali Abd­ulemam is on trial, hav­ing been arres­ted for “dif­fus­ing fab­ric­ated and mali­cious news on Bahrain’s internal situ­ation to spread rumours and sub­vert the Kingdom’s secur­ity and sta­bil­ity.” (http://english.bna.bh/?ID=89532 ). I know the pro­gress­ive and enlightened people I met in Bahrain’s gov­ern­ment will be embar­rassed and saddened by this trial, and that their pub­lic silence will not reflect their private views. They will also know that their efforts to pro­mote Bahrain as a mod­ern and busi­ness friendly state risk being under­mined by the actions of the secur­ity appar­atus. In build­ing a bet­ter future for Bahrain enabling dis­sent — and integ­rat­ing it — is as import­ant as inter­na­tional advert­ising campaigns.

You can read more about Ali Abd­ulemam in the WSJ, The Atlantic and on Global Voices.

Ali Abdulemam’s trial is sched­uled for today (Thursday 28, Octo­ber). His case is but one of many, yet it stands for what many people hoped blogs and the digital revolu­tion might achieve, and his impris­on­ment is testi­mony to another broken tech-topian prom­ise. And he deserves better.

Barbarians at the Gate — Britain’s Broken Public Sphere

Alan Rusbridger’s What is the future of the fourth estate prompts a thought on the state of Brit­ish media, or — more simply — the BBC/Murdoch duopoly.

The BBC com­mands radio, online, magazines (Top Gear, Gardener’s World) and main­stream TV view­ing. Sky and News­corp com­mand sub­scrip­tion TV and print.

They are — natch — deadly rivals. News­corp thinks of the BBC as a patri­cian and para­sitic not-for-profit, leech­ing money off those who reap no bene­fit from the licence fee whilst sim­ul­tan­eously pun­ish­ing any free enter­prise (think News 24 remov­ing the com­mer­cial base for Sky News). The BBC for its part has replaced the Church of Eng­land in the lives of the nation, and its com­bin­a­tion of sanc­ti­mony, saint­li­ness and soap.

The Guard­ian is — of course — squeezed by both.

Such is the power of the duo­poly that one is obliged to take sides. As BBC loy­al­ists will tell you with the air of sym­path­etic, but impa­tient teach­ers: to cri­ti­cize is to under­mine; to ques­tion the licence fee effect­ively heresy. As News’ people will tell you — the BBC &**ç%!!

But this misses the point. The BBC is effect­ively apolit­ical, unable to cam­paign to change the estab­lish­ment on which it reports. News­corp is a weapon unsheathed in defence of its own quix­otic interests. One has the artistry and affect­a­tions of dec­ad­ence, the other the vital­ity and vicious­ness of barbarism.

Neither option in the duo­poly offers plur­al­ity. But it has, until recently, mirrored rather well Britain’s polit­ical sys­tem. Of course, coali­tion gov­ern­ment has inter­rup­ted that…

Replies to a journalism student

Belinda Giles sent me the fol­low­ing email:

Dear Adrian

I am a uni­ver­sity stu­dent in West­ern Aus­tralia, study­ing law/journalism. I am work­ing on an opin­ion piece for the journ­al­ism com­pon­ent — the sub­ject is ‘journ­al­ism is the lifeblood of demo­cracy’. Dur­ing my googling I came across your blog — ‘a blog about news’.

I have to say you are one of the few sources I have come across that is a pro­ponent for the ‘anti’ per­spect­ive — that journ­al­ism is not neces­sary for demo­cracy. As a res­ult, I would be most appre­ci­at­ive if you could answer a few ques­tions for my opin­ion piece?

Below are my replies.

How does a demo­cracy actu­ally func­tion without journalism?

Many demo­cratic insti­tu­tions already func­tion ‘without journ­al­ism’, espe­cially at local level, (e.g. Eng­lish coun­cils) – and by journ­al­ism, I include both report­age (e.g. coun­cil reports) and ‘watch­dog’ func­tions (e.g. hold­ing to account, investigation).

The myth­o­logy of journ­al­ism stresses these vital civic func­tions, although there is a little evid­ence to sup­port such claims.

Cer­tainly news­pa­per journ­al­ism did play a part in filling an insti­tu­tional vacuum in the rap­idly urb­an­iz­ing United States, but the con­cerns of the 20C with respect to journ­al­ism were not about pre­serving and enhan­cing that role, but mostly about the polit­ical power that ‘journ­al­ism’ placed in the hands of media proprietors…which tells you some­thing about where the bal­ance lay.

The devel­op­ment of gov­ern­ment, bur­eau­cracy, inspect­or­ates and legis­lat­ive over­sight all con­trib­uted to reduce the role and scope of journ­al­ism as the ‘fourth estate’.

Incid­ent­ally dur­ing news­pa­per strikes in the mid-20C, parts of the US were without journ­al­ism for long peri­ods (months) without any notice­able ‘demo­cratic crisis’.

What are some altern­at­ive sources of polit­ical inform­a­tion, if not journalism?

(Polit­ical inform­a­tion is not the only neces­sity in a demo­cracy. There’s also the require­ment to organ­ize around it – hence the old-fashioned news­pa­per cam­paign as a proxy.) I think sites like theyworkforyou.com are excel­lent sources of polit­ical inform­a­tion. So, too, are select committees.

Pres­sure groups, think tanks and NGOs are increas­ingly soph­ist­ic­ated inform­a­tion gather­ers and they recog­nise the import­ance of com­bin­ing robust data with cam­paign­ing agendas.

What would you say to the asser­tion ‘journ­al­ism is the lifeblood of democracy’?

Say journ­al­ists. But there are fewer of them and demo­cracy seems to be surviving.

When con­sid­er­ing the role of journ­al­ism in polit­ics and demo­cracy, how do you think com­mer­cial interests, leg­al­it­ies and the danger of journ­al­ism affect the abil­ity of journ­al­ists to even ful­fill this role?

I loved being a journ­al­ist, and many of my friends still are journ­al­ists and they risk much in pur­su­ing stor­ies in places like Afgh­anistan. But I think we often roman­ti­cize the role of journ­al­ists (the price of self-justification?).

Polit­ical journ­al­ism is largely at the level of intel­lec­tual gos­sip – who’s up, who’s down, who’s in, who’s out. As the old rhyme goes:

You can­not hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the Brit­ish journ­al­ist.
But, see­ing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occa­sion to.’

When it comes to cam­paign­ing, I’m a big believer in a civil­ian twist to Machiavel­lian ‘virtu’. Machiavelli thought cit­izens shouldn’t hire mer­cen­ar­ies to fight their battles. By doing so they made them­selves slaves.

I think journ­al­ists are a little like those con­dot­tiere — swash­buck­ling myth-makers, and we cit­izen con­sumers? We’re a little like Machiavelli’s con­tem­por­ar­ies who sold out their civic freedoms for security.

I think cit­izens should organ­ize them­selves and not rely on proxies.

In light of the con­cerns of journ­al­ism being/not being the lifeblood of demo­cracy, do you think there is a future for it?

As long as there’s a need to rep­res­ent the present and recent past as stor­ies to tell us who we are, there is a future for journ­al­ism. Whether or not that is a very effect­ive way to organ­ize human affairs, I couldn’t say, but for the story-tellers it is an enjoy­able way, and suf­fi­ciently so for journ­al­ism to remain attract­ive as a pas­time if not as a profession.

Janet Malcolm on journalism

Janet Mal­colm has some choice words about journ­al­ism in her exten­ded essay in the 3 May 2010 New Yorker.

Over the years, the social status and the edu­ca­tion level of journ­al­ists has risen and some journ­al­ists write extremely well. But the pro­fes­sion retains its trans­gress­ive­ness. Human frailty con­tin­ues to be the cur­rency in which it trades. Malice remains its anim­at­ing impulse. Con­tinue read­ing