This is the first of three posts on journalism, subjectivity and the movement. Part two is now up here. The article by Laurie Penny it critiques can be found online here
This week’s New Statesman is leading with a cover piece by Laurie Penny on the British student protest movement. I’ve known about this for a while, having been asked to feature in it, alongside my partner – the piece profiles several activists from the UCL occupation, which we took part in. We declined, feeling that being profiled doesn’t really fit our politics (but obviously have nothing against the individuals who did choose to feature – it’s just not for us). So imagine my surprise when, not having read the piece yet, Laurie told me last night that I’m quoted: I am the ‘girl in a grey hoodie’ in the beginning of the piece. Here’s what “I” have to say:
“People have to stop talking about us like we’re just idealistic kids,” says a girl in a grey hoodie, jabbing her roll-up in my direction. “We’re on the front line of a class war. We have a better understanding of this government’s economic shock doctrine than most adults.”
This is far from what I actually said. And this blog is going to largely be about why that matters.
For a start, I didn’t say “idealistic kids”. I am idealistic. Particularly when the flipside is so often ‘pragmatic’, that horrible New Labour dog-whistle for ‘not radical’. What I said was ‘romantic’. And I said romantic because Laurie and I were talking about the political problems I have with the tone and message of many of her recent articles (in particular, this one on Millbank). So it’s not ‘people’ who have to stop believing we’re idealistic. It’s Laurie who needs to stop writing us up as romantic. Big difference. Big elision.
Laurie has, to be fair, taken some of my criticisms on board here. The paragraph about hard work above the quote (“a hub of light and activity…”) reads in similar way to my New Statesman piece, explicitly written to counter the romanticisation of the movement that render it sexy, fun and ultimately non-threatening, toothless. But too much of this same myth-making creeps into this piece; the paragraph on the snow, the image of “members of the so-called lost generation” pressing “their faces against the glass”, running outside “interrupting a debate” to check it out, rings very false. It certainly didn’t happen like that while I was there. Because we’re serious, and committed, and not five years old. It makes us seem sweet. We’re not fucking sweet.
The deployment of the generational metaphor matters here too. Going back to ‘the girl in a grey hoodie’ (I’m 24, do I get to be a woman yet?), ‘I’ say: “We’re on the front line of a class war. We have a better understanding of this government’s economic shock doctrine than most adults.”
So, OK, I’ll cop to probably having said the class war bit, because that’s the kind of overly hard-edged, bombastic shit I’d say in a late night, private, friendly chat. I’m a bit of a show pony, and sometimes the politics slides to the rhetorical over the realistic. We all have our faults. But ‘shock doctrine’? I’m a revolutionary socialist. I have literally never used that formulation, and I can’t imagine I ever will. It’s just not in my political vocabulary, or that of most comrades who’ve spent more time on picket lines and demos than reading the New Statesman. So why put these words in my mouth?
Worse is the ‘we’ (youth) understanding more than ‘adults’. I am an adult. Some of my best friends are adults. This isn’t teenagers v. grown-ups, particularly not for me, as one of the older occupiers. And Laurie knows that I’m a vociferous critic of the generational struggle argument, which makes raising the spectre of it here, in ‘my’ words, all the more dishonest.
So, I get anonymously misquoted by a journalist (though while portrayed enough for UCL occupiers to guess it’s me – class war, roll-ups, the ever present grey hoodie..). Big deal, big cliche, they do it all the time etc. I’m just being precious.
But this isn’t like your recorded, interview-style, on-record words being taken out of context, or mangled a bit. Laurie wasn’t recording our conversation, or taking notes. I thought we were talking as activists, acquaintances, even friends. This isn’t a misquote, because no original quote exists. It’s a fabrication. And a betrayal of trust, albeit a small one, that is potentially stifling. Would we have agreed to let Laurie become so embedded in the occupation if we knew anything we said, at any point, might become ‘on-the-record’, however misremembered and spun? If this is how we’re doing journalism now, better watch what you say. All the time.
In the warm-up piece for the longer article, Laurie argues that objectivity is both impossible and undesirable, as a defence of being very clearly pro-activist here. She’s right. But there’s another kind of objectivity, not relating to which side you sympathise with: the objectivity of relating events and words truthfully, as they actually happened or were said. Having a good line on one kind of objectivity, the being on our side kind, is not a defence for too often ignoring the other. There are huge problems with ‘going native’ – reporting from the inside, subjectively, means reporting your subjective experience. Articles get filled with your analysis, your ideas, with you. That’s fine if you’re writing a political column, where it’s clear. But a lifestyle or colour piece is different – subjective views here are more easily hidden, harder to spot and evaluate. There aren’t just two sides to this, “outside” and “inside”. The inside has differences and nuances, and the decision to play up some of these – internet, youth, the wonders of consensus – is political.
Laurie’s subjective view, her political choices, are high-profile, unlike mine or yours. Her points are powerful, because thousands read them in the NS or Guardian. This power should be used with more care if Laurie is on our side, not just in it.
There’s more to say on the piece in general, outside of my frustration at being the grey hoodie girl, which I’ll fill in tomorrow.
Part two is now online here.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I think the editors changed the word ‘naive’ to the word ‘idealistic’. Annoying, but their perogative.
Comment by Laurie Penny — January 28, 2011 @ 7:39 pm
So you’re saying that your editors think that fabricating quotations in reports is reasonable or you do. Someone should write a letter to the New Statesman editors asking why, after such an accusation from one of their staff writers, they think that this is good journalistic practice. Or perhaps you could ask them yourself and post the response you get here.
Comment by Der Papiertiger — January 28, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being.” Thomas Jefferson
Ah how things have changed
Comment by Hay Nonimouse — January 30, 2011 @ 11:20 am
Hi Sofie,
I’ve been in touch with the editors and the way the quote was phrased was the result of a cutting exercise rather than changing the original quote I sent into them – which was based on notes I took immediately after our conversation.
As you will recall I messaged you to say that I was putting that conversation in the article and you didn’t get back to me at all, so I assumed that that was fine, particularly as our original conversation was based on a critique of my previous articles, so i thought you’d be particularly pleased that it went in. Everyone else quoted in the article was also given a chance to respond and thought it was absolutely fine.
The new statesman do not fabricate quotes and neither do I; if you choose to recall it differently, or feel that you have been misrepresented, that’s your prerogative, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t waste energy trying to imply that I’m somehow not behaving professionally.
Comment by Laurie Penny — January 31, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
I don’t recall being asked to OK that quote – I certainly wouldn’t have seen it as a fair representation of my views, or a reasonable journalistic practice to write up private conversations without indicating they’re on the record. Particulary since you’ve changed ‘You (Laurie) need to stop doing x’ to ‘people’ – hardly a reflection of our actual discussion. Was the entire occupation on the record?
I don’t think this article is ‘unprofessional’ – I’m sure it meets lots of lovely liberal journalistic standards that I don’t give a toss about – but I think it’s problematic politically, and reflects a broader issue for the movement and our relationships with journalists. More shortly, in the next part.
Comment by Sofie — January 31, 2011 @ 1:34 pm
[...] piece on the student movement and how said student movement relates to journalists. Part one is here. The piece is in this week’s New Statesman, and will be linked when it’s [...]
Pingback by zetkin « notebook — January 31, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
What is the objection to “shock doctrine”? I really liked that book but I’ll admit I have no idea how it’s regarded by people more politically engaged than me.
Comment by Ned — January 31, 2011 @ 9:47 pm
[...] at Zetkin is currently writing a three-part post about journalism and the student movement, taking Laurie Penny to task on [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Socialism | The Great Unrest — February 1, 2011 @ 1:15 pm
First-rate discussion, Sofie.
You should apply to the New Statesman to publish this work in full, particularly if you feel that you and the movement have been misrepresented. Concerns about misquoting and creation of scenes must be taken very seriously. Accuracy is the cornerstone of journalism and a publication must respond, and give you every opportunity to articulate your issues in the same forum as the original poster.
Comment by Kate Belgrave — February 2, 2011 @ 9:31 am
“You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God
The British journalist
But seeing what the man unbribed will do
There’s no occasion to.”
Or woman, in this case. Never trust them.
Comment by Bob — February 2, 2011 @ 12:22 pm
It’s heartening that you distinguish between modes of journalistic subjectivity.
There is most deifinitely a problem with the bourgeious journalist mode of objectivity, which Marxists have always (rightly) criticised as being implicit in reproducing the ideology and constraints of the bourgeois state.
But there is also a problem with replacing that with a wholly subjective viewpoint that denies the existence of a reportable objective reality. Just to be clear, I’m not accusing Laurie of having done this, it is simply a reaction to some of material well meaning comrades produce as news.
In a chaotic reality, journalism has to involve a certain amount of selection to create a coherent and understandable narrative. There is a difference between that laudable aim and presenting a smooth, overly romantic picture of what is a real, human, disputed and developing movement.
Comment by Richard — February 2, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
I’m afraid I feel more strongly than that.
If I were to publish an article in a mainstream publication which featured interviews with people who came forward to say that I had either created quotes and scenes and/or misquoted them, I would expect to find myself explaining myself to an editorial board and the publication to respond publicly to the complainant. If my article was found to be inaccurate, I would expect a corrective to be published.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a journalist just getting something wrong, or mishearing someone and just plain writing down the wrong thing, but in the interests of integrity and accuracy, concerns about this sort of thing need to be quickly addressed. We all get it wrong from time to time – I certainly have done – but in this post and the earlier one, there are references to inaccuracies, creations and misreporting by the original author that require a response from the publication in the interests of ongoing integrity.
Comment by Kate Belgrave — February 2, 2011 @ 3:25 pm
I absolutely agree.
Although we should make a distinction between the misreporting that took place in the article mentioned (if it did, which I am not in any position to judge) and the kind of filth represented by, for instance, this: http://bit.ly/hqUYWk
At least we can count on left wing journalists to make an attempt to represent accurately. Their reputation among activists, which I assume is important to them, depends on it.
Comment by Richard — February 2, 2011 @ 5:23 pm
Hi Richard,
Yes – that Daily Mail one was off the scale and that crew just deserves to be shot. I couldn’t believe it when I saw that one cruise by on twitter.
I think what I’m talking about is the integrity of the movement. I doubt there’s a journalist alive who can say they’ve always got it right and/or that they’ve gone through their publishing lives without being challenged by someone they’ve interviewed. I certainly have been – vigorously on a couple of occasions – so can’t pretend to be prancing round here with a clean sheet. Just this week, an interview subject asked me to remove a paragraph from a blog I wrote – they felt the information I’d posted should be kept private and that I’d agreed not to post it. I felt that the terms of the interview had changed over time for a number of reasons, but in the end, after a few tense emails, decided that the point being made was fair and removed the lines. It’s never easy and nobody ever gets it 100% right.
This is an important debate for anyone who is publishing about any aspect of the movement, for the simple reason that concerns about inconsistencies, accuracy and motivation, voiced often enough and by enough people, detract from the integrity of us all and the work that we’re trying to do to to push this government back.
The truth is that there’s not much room for adjective or hyperbole in good journalism – that’s just something you learn as you get older. You can write with passion, but the passion can’t just be your own. It can’t be inserted where it doesn’t exist. Youth sometimes tries to do that – that is part of the brilliance of youth. It just easily tips over into excess and/or a narrative that is just plain inaccurate or excessive. I think that is especially likely to happen when someone is keen on a mainstream career. Not all of us are keen on mainstream careers, for that and other reasons – it’s good to get things published from time to time, but to generally keep the thing at arms’ length. Excess and drama are increasingly part of the mainstream picture and it’s easy for people to overdo it in the interests of profile.
A good debate and I think Sofie has demonstrated courage and integrity in pursuing it.
Comment by Kate Belgrave — February 2, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
I’m a Yank for greater income inequality, and all I want to say is that the on-the-record/off-the-record distinction is an artifact of corporate spin doctoring. When I practice volunteer citizen journalism I make no such distinction, and I respect journalists who don’t either.
Comment by James — February 2, 2011 @ 7:20 pm
[...] quite often in Laurie’s writing, and it’s one which was picked up this week in a series of critical pieces on Zetkin, the blog of a former UCL [...]
Pingback by On Laurie Penny’s account of the “Old Left” « the red rock — February 2, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
Long time coming, Sofie. I don’t think I’ve met an activist who can stomach Penny’s melodramatic sensationalism!
Comment by Kirsty — February 2, 2011 @ 10:15 pm
This is all getting a bit masturbatory, isn’t it?
Three articles on Laurie Penny? I think even shopping would be a more revolutionary way to spend your time.
I mean, sure, when I saw the piece in the New Statesman I literally gagged. Everyone in the newsagents look around. It’s awful. Nevermind: what do you expect of the bourgeois press?
I mean, just get over yourself Zetkin. Move on. Laurie is already well dead to the Left, and more pressing things are on the menu.
Finally, journo’s are always on the record: that’s nothing new. Sometimes it’s a good thing: like, when local councillors start telling you things they know they shouldn’t, and you quote it even though you know it wasn’t strictly “on the record”.
All best
Wit
Comment by wit — February 5, 2011 @ 1:54 am
Laurie Penny: “The new statesman do not fabricate quotes and neither do I; if you choose to recall it differently, or feel that you have been misrepresented, that’s your prerogative, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t waste energy trying to imply that I’m somehow not behaving professionally.”
What, the writer’s allowed to have any opinion she likes but you’d appreciate it if she didn’t air it?
Comment by Claude McNab — February 7, 2011 @ 12:07 pm
[...] To understand why I’m writing this now, you could go read something by Laurie Penny and then something written in opposition to Penny’s writing, but as the combined total is clear of 5000 words, lets just say this: some activists really [...]
Pingback by Activists are interesting humans too! « Graham's Grumbles — February 8, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
‘Would we have agreed to let Laurie become so embedded in the occupation if we knew anything we said, at any point, might become ‘on-the-record’, however misremembered and spun?’
Laurie is right. ‘Naive’ would be a better word.
‘The new statesman do not fabricate quotes and neither do I’
Now that’s either a naive statement, or just one by a liar.
What is it Laurie?
Comment by duckrabbit — February 8, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
[...] Somewhere between Ms. Penny’s notebook and the New Statesman subs it looks like some quotes have been made up. [...]
Pingback by Ooooh, dear Ms. Laurie Penny — February 9, 2011 @ 8:23 am
If you consort with the devil…
Comment by foundavoice — February 9, 2011 @ 9:06 am
Though she clearly lied she did it to make your side more cuddly.
Considering that the entire British media continuously lied & censored for the last 20 years to promote racial murder, genocide, child sexual slavery and the dissection of living people to steal their body organs Penny sems, in this case to have behaved with thousands of times more integrity than our obscene & corrupt journalists normally aspire to.
Comment by Neil Craig — February 9, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
This confirms what I have always thought; that Laurie Penny is a disingenuous, ambitious careerist. That she tries to paint herself as a disenfranchised Marxist when in reality she’s an iPad wielding Oxbridge bourgeois, really winds me up. I don’t trust a word she writes.
Comment by Left Out — February 10, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
Laurie – why don’t you have shorthand? You seriously saying you just “quote” people from memory? No real journalist does that. Get yourself to night school.
Comment by TalkToFrank — February 10, 2011 @ 6:20 pm
“And I said romantic because Laurie and I were talking about the political problems I have with the tone and message of many of her recent articles”
Gave yourself away in the first few paragraphs. Axe to grind, chip on your shoulder, why should anyone lend you more credence than to Laurie Penny? Christ you’re shit at this.
Comment by Richard — April 17, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
“I’m a revolutionary socialist.”
Just spit it out, you’re a member of the SWP. Fucking hell, you’re as bad as all the things you accuse Penny of you. Call a spade a spade, will you.
Comment by Richard — April 17, 2012 @ 3:39 pm
Reading this rubbish is like getting in a time machine to the 1970s. Why do young lefties think they are always so bloody ground-breaking and original? You are 24 – you don’t remember the Soviet Union or Arthur Scargill. Socialism spent 150 years killing people before dying itself, and it was finally buried in 1989. You are so hopelessly naive and old-fashioned, covering the same ground that your grandparents and parents did, and using the same pathetic language. They achieved NOTHING, and you will achieve just the same. Get over it and do something useful in your life.
Comment by Chas — April 17, 2012 @ 6:38 pm