I wasn’t going to blog about Lembit’s new column (fnarr! fnarr! snork!) – I figure I’ve fulfilled my quota of Lembit bashing for the year. But then he went and said something stupid:
“This is part of my own stated objective to reach beyond the normal political limits to people who may not be particularly interested in Parliament, but will find it interesting if the info is presented in a non-pompous or technical way.
“That’s my goal, and I hope anyone who values the benefit of a politically informed society will agree with this approach.
“It’s politics for real people, and, thanks to the Sport, I’m glad to have the opportunity.”
How does one define “real”? If by “real” you mean people who aren’t obsessed by politics, fair enough, but that doesn’t make Daily Sport readers “real” by definition. The Sport has 80,000 readers. That’s less than half the readers of the worst selling UK “quality” (I would demur from this description) daily, The Independent. If he was claiming to be reaching out to people that mainstream politics usually ignores, that is true as far as it goes. But suggesting they are ordinary and typical of the man in the street is not merely factually wrong, it is demeaning to the typical man in the street.
Whichever way you dress it up though, the Daily Sport is misogyny. We can argue about whether porn can be empowering or not until the cows come home, but there is no fuzzy grey area where the Sport, Nuts and Zoo are concerned. The days when it used to get away with presenting itself as a UK version of the National Enquirer (double decker found on the moon!) are long gone. I wouldn’t ban it, or even insist it is on the top shelf, but letting it crawl into a corner and die would be a thoroughly good thing for society. Is Lembit going to challenge that misogyny or just go along with it? We shall see.
One of the things I find remarkable about all this is how even criticising the Sport and other soft porn titles as sexist has somehow become socially unacceptable. The debate on Lib Dem Voice skirted around the issue (I have to admit to failing to get my outrage on there), merely focusing on whether Lembit’s decision to do this would do the party more harm than good. The argument – from Julian H, Iain Coleman and others – went that, so long as it didn’t actually harm the party electorally, and potentially reached out to new voters, it was unimpeachable.
I can’t help but suspect this phenomena is all too closely related to Emily Benn’s avowed post-feminism. Lembit, lest we forget, is Liberal Vision’s “most liberal MP” – liberalism, we are to believe, is now to be graded according to which Early Day Motions you have signed. If British liberalism really has become so timid and self-conscious that it feels it cannot even criticise (as distinct from ban) the illiberal, then it is lost.
Is it just me or does Lembit’s justification sound dangerously similar to George Galloway’s justification for appearing on Celebrity Big Brother?
James, you know my views on porn – it doesn’t have to be misogynistic, but most of it is anyway – and I’m in full agreement with you about the Sport.
I hadn’t read that thread on LDV, but I have now, and have commented.
Isn’t this just one more example of “media tarting” incontinence gone mad? The man does a 30 second speech when the light comes on when he opens his fridge.
Anyone with a pulse is a “real” person. There is really no “typical man in the street”. Even millionaires walk down streets regularly.
The independent’s circulation is 100,000.
The Independent’s average daily sale last month was 201,113
I know you did this blog a long time ago but i have to applaud everything you say here. I am one of those that gets bashed a lot for talking about how objectifyable porn is, and how illiberal Opik is. You sum it up in one.