The irony of status and relative credibility

The last couple of days I've observed the latest in a long line of examples of the sweet irony of being a political activist [i.e. read 'political activist' as a synonym for 'real hardcore investigative journalist'] as opposed to a recognised 'journalist.' Some fella on Twitter has offered his opinion that my Nadarkhani remarks are based on assumption rather than sources. Others have simply accused me of lying. Well, I certainly haven't lied. Such a conclusion is probably based upon poor comprehension of what I actually wrote. And the fault for that is not mine as a writer - because what I wrote was perfectly clear, matter-of-fact and in this instance was written in lowest common denominator simple English (so that even Americans can get it): the fault for misinterpreting straight remarks regarding Nadarkhani falls squarely upon those readers.

My expectation is that regular [intelligent] readers of this blog understand how this blog functions. Briefly, this blog contains a mix of straight and (sometimes quite subtle) satirical blog-posts. Straight [always factual] and satirical [often non-factual] material is never mixed (to deliberately confuse/deceive) within a single blog-post. A Carvath post is either straight or it is satirical. That being said, some of the straight posts are written in a 'witty tone' rather than in a formal reporting style; some readers may think such posts are satirical but they are not; such posts are serious (factually accurate) yet witty too. Some of my straight posts do contain fact and opinion together but the intelligent reader ought to be able to discern between the two - indeed such discernment is necessary when reading any ordinary newspaper, be it highbrow broadsheet or tabloid dross.

In simple terms then, the posts on this blog fall into three general categories which I might define as follows:

(1a) Straight Content [factual content, formal manner];

(1b) Straight-but-witty Content [factual content, witty manner - occasionally very idiosyncratic];

(2) Satirical Content [style is satirical, whether obviously or subtly: substance may or may not be factual: motive sometimes includes a desire to be deliberately provocative - although this is less often the case than many readers probably suppose].

Of course, posts are not labelled as such. Notwithstanding that it is harder to pick up on a writer's tone than it is to read somebody's tone when we watch and listen to somebody speaking in person, I expect that my [English] readers have the intelligence to exercise a certain level of discernment. I appreciate that American readers are sometimes mystified by things I write because of idiomatic language, parochial in-jokes and the different sense of irony and humour between Brits and Americans. Though I have a certain sympathy for my American readers but I do expect truly British people to 'get me' because when you read this blog you are in England.

It would completely spoil this blog if I was to tag posts with a category (straight or satirical). This blog has a lot of what I refer to as 'secret lemonade drinkers.' This blog is read by many people who would not publicly admit to reading it because this blog is deemed outrageous by today's PC Brigade. The regular readership of this blog is genuinely global and the number of readers is much higher than those who would prefer this blog did not exist might dare to guess. Although this blog is deliberately esoteric to date, its daily readership often approaches and occasionally exceeds that of the big political bloggers. As I say, I know there are many of you secret lemonade drinkers out there. There are even Carvath addicts - which is sad, you need help - but most of you secret lemonade drinkers simply get a quasi-erotic kick out of Carvathian satire, or else you hang around here hoping I will toss you a tasty titbit of news (as occasionally I do) before it hits the mainstream media.

Which brings me to the main point of this post. Having made explicit that this blog does carry both straight and satirical material, I'd like to consider the irony of status (as per the headline title) in regard of the straight content.

It is a fact that on this blog I have several times now reported factual news before it has been picked up by the mainstream broadcast and print media. I sometimes publish major national news on this blog which is exclusive at the time of publication. The proof is right here on this blog; there are several examples which you can find. And on a couple of occasions even just my personal opinion as expressed on this blog has been reported in newspapers as news: my blogging has been considered intrinsically newsworthy primarily because of its Carvathian style (rather than for the merit of my subject). Any professional journo familiar with me knows that I'm basically one of them. They know I do serious investigative research (that they don't dare to do). Journalists come to me for information. I give tips to journalists which they then report as fact without identifying me as their source.

I find it deeply ironic that straight factual news content might be (or is) disbelieved or disregarded if/when I put it out on this blog, and yet if I supply that information as a tip to a journalist and that information is subsequently reported by a newspaper then I am suddenly transformed into a credible (though uncredited) source. Although the public almost invariably and without thinking attributes the facts they read directly to the journalist whose newspaper article they are reading as the primary source of those facts, that journalist is actually just a middleman.

More often than not, journalists are not themselves direct witnesses to an event. Journalists are often not the primary source of the facts they report; they do not 'do their own digging' - they don't do their own source-work. Many professional journalists these days simply regurgitate what they are fed in press releases from organisations seeking to publicise something. There are fewer hardcore investigative reporters around who do their own digging than there used to be twenty years ago.

Despite once or twice having been the news, and despite sometimes reporting the news before it becomes the news in the mainstream, [the straight content of] this blog does not have the official status of 'news,' and I as a political activist do not have the official status of 'journalist' despite that being exactly what I am. The perception of status can be a strange business, not least where politics is concerned.

Similarly, perception of qualification is an interesting concept. Who qualifies who? For example, though I am entirely self-taught as a drummer myself - having no formal recognition of my standard of accomplishment, and no formal qualification to teach - it is a fact that I have taught [paid and voluntary] many people to play the drums. Am I qualified to teach drumkit? No. But have I successfully taught drums to people? Yes. So on paper I'm completely unqualified but in practice I know what I'm talking about and can do what I say just as well (if not better) than someone with a nice framed certificate and recognised with the status of 'Teacher.' There are plenty of people who have passed their test and hold a driving licence but they are not safe to drive. They are qualified to drive but they are not safe (or no longer safe) to drive. Though they ought to be disqualified, their status is that of being qualified. University graduates are qualified. A graduate has a university degree. We are supposed to believe that university graduates are highly educated and thus - that education being accredited and assessed by those who are paid to do so - graduates are highly qualified. I must say, though many graduates do possess genuine intellectual ability above average, an increasing number are numpties severely lacking in knowledge of their subject or the ability to apply it. I know a lot more about politics and have a lot more experience of real politics and activism than any 21-year-old politics graduate. I'm much better read too; I've read far more in terms of both breadth of works and sheer volume. As for journalism, well, I'm not qualified at all on paper, but in reality I have far more experience and ability as an investigative researcher and writer than many that are officially recognised on account of a formal qualification. I do not have the status of a journalist - but I am a journalist. I've been researching and writing for years. My tips go far and wide. Directly and indirectly: I inform; I educate; I influence.

Though I am unidentified as the primary source of a reported fact, if it was me that uncovered that fact then how much more the journalist am I than the journalist who gets the credit for publicly reporting the fact? But in terms of perception of status, it simply doesn't work that way. I may be a journalist, but if I am not credited as a journalist then I am not perceived to be a journalist.

Thinking back to the 2010 General Election, in the months before the election two people were reported by the media as being parliamentary candidates for Salford and Eccles. I knew full well that neither of them were genuine. But because the media reported them - they had status. For several months they fraudulently enjoyed the status of a parliamentary candidate - distracting public attention from the genuine candidates, and taking vital column inches of coverage off the genuine candidates - but of course, when it came to the crunch, their names were nowhere to be found on the ballot paper. At the time of them being reported as candidates I believed both of them were bullshing, I believed that they both had no intention or expectation of actually going through with it, and I believed that the journalists who gave them their media platform - a status and credibility that was later to prove undeserved - also knew full well that they were a couple of bullsh-merchants at the time. I was a genuine candidate. My declaration of candidacy was genuine, but between them a couple of bullsh-merchants and tease Martin Bell (who never actually said he would stand, but merely fancied the idea in public) received far more news coverage than I did.

In politics and in the media there is so often a gulf between the perception of status and the reality. The distortion can be the result of a deliberate manipulation by those journalists who present us with what we ourselves willingly accept as news - because we are reading it in the newspaper - but not always; sometimes we deceive ourselves by the perceptions we form through lack of knowledge of facts, through lack of ability or laziness in interpreting those facts (in order to correctly discern the truth), or through simple prejudice which is quite happy to deny reality.

I often say, "The only power of a lie is if people believe it." It's exactly so. Lies come in many shapes and sizes. The most potent lies often contain a large measure of truth; it's that tiny drop of poison mixed in with the meal that's so deadly. It never ceases to amaze me how people so often fall for lies they fail to recognise as such (though they could've and should've), but when they are confronted by the truth they so often passionately deny it and dismiss it.

Oh for accurate communication, perception and comprehension of real status. They hear it from the horse's mouth and they do not believe; but if the TV or the newspaper tells them they believe.

Accuse me; deny me; dismiss me; distort me; ignore me. True status stands firm while false perceptions fade. I look forward to the day I emerge from those shadows I did not cast: the real me. That day will come.