More socio-political blather

[LordOfTheFiles]

Clearly there is a Anti KL thread going on here

I quite like Red Ken. In general he fights for what he believes is right and has a fairly endearing stubborn streak. However on this point I simply can't defend his choices. He could have put this to bed a long time ago by simply apologising.

[LMC]

I like the TfL website too.

KL was immediately inappropriately aggressive to someone who was just doing his job: "no comment" should have been sufficient. Even if he doesn't want to apologise for his annoyance at the invasion of privacy, apologising for upsetting people with his language wouldn't go amiss.

Stewart, this one's for you:

[David Bailey]

Why, what did you do?

What didn't I do?

OK, I didn't call a reporter a Nazi - so, apart from that, then...

I quite like Red Ken. In general he fights for what he believes is right and has a fairly endearing stubborn streak. However on this point I simply can't defend his choices. He could have put this to bed a long time ago by simply apologising.

He's clearly got a massive stubborn streak. That can be a good thing when trying to force through change (Bus lanes, congestion charge), but you also want someone who'll admit it when he's wrong (i.e. here) or on a hiding to nothing (e.g. the row over the PFI stuff and the Tube).

Knowing when to pick your battles is a skill too.

[Andy McGregor]

So, what might have been going through Mr Livingstone's head?

Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard — how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"

I don't like the Standard and believe that anybody working for them needs medical treatment - probably from a psychiatrist

Finegold: "Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"
Livingstone: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"

I don't like you and think you are acting like a German war criminal - you probably think you're just doing your job and that has annoyed me.

Finegold: "No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal and I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Right, well you might be — but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are doing it just because you are paid to, aren’t you?"

Well, as you're jewish I'm going to refer to an event you will have heard of and compare you to someone you probably hate. Have you got the message that I don't want you around asking me questions?

Finegold: "Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?"
Livingstone: "It’s nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots."

Oh, you're still here, how rude do I have to be to get you to go away?

Finegold: "I’m a journalist and I’m doing my job. I’m only asking for a comment."
Livingstone: "Well, work for a paper that doesn’t have a record of supporting fascism."

I've already said the guard bit, I still need to slag off the paper

My own opinion is that the residents of London will not change their opinion of Mr Livingstone. He is behaving in exactly the same manner as he did before he was elected - and they still voted for him to become Mayor. And I have a thought about the reporter too. Is there any chance that he's using the fact he's Jewish to blow this up and sell more newspapers? After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.

[David Bailey]

My own opinion is that the residents of London will not change their opinion of Mr Livingstone. He is behaving in exactly the same manner as he did before he was elected - and they still voted for him to become Mayor.

Well, be fair, you have to consider the alternatives we were offered (both times)...

And I have a thought about the reporter too. Is there any chance that he's using the fact he's Jewish to blow this up and sell more newspapers? After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.

Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him up, or to set him up - the way the tape is played almost seems artificial in some ways. And yes, of course the Board of Deputies aren't big Ken fans - he's been consistently anti-Israeli, and of course Jewish people aren't going to generally appreciate that,

But, he said what he said, and he didn't apologise for what he said - and now he's flailing around, issuing personal statements about the affair on the official Mayoral website to put his particular spin on it, blaming everyone and anyone...

And there's a lot of history there - for example, there was that punchup in 2002, which also was referred to the standards body I believe. Controversy follows him around; it's just too early to say whether this is a Ken thing, or whether all mayors will have this. Let's face it, Giuliani was Mr Controversy when he was mayour of New York, and he'll probably be standing for President of the USA next time round.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him up

Don't be absurd: it was Livingstone who started the whole racial thing. Are you saying you think the ES should have taken pains to avoid sending a Jewish reporter? Do you think that London deserves the kind of Mayor for whom being interviewed by a Jew is a 'problem'? Are there any other people that Jews should avoid interviewing in their capacity at Evening Standards journalists? Of course not. What a ridiculous idea.

Well, as you're jewish I'm going to refer to an event you will have heard of and compare you to someone you probably hate.

Well that counts as racism by any definition.

After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.

If he'd been a North American Indian, the insult wouldn't have been made. What exactly is your point?

[Barry Shnikov]

Not to acknowledge the offence in the cold light of day and apologise to those offended just compounds the error

This is the bit I have difficulty with, and why I wrote in an earlier post "just because something has offended people doesn't make it offensive".

As an illustration. There was an occasion (previously discussed in these columns) where a woman photographer put photographs of her children in an exhibition of her work in London. The children were, in some pictures, naked and romping on a beach. The police demanded that the exhibition be closed while they determined whether the pictures were criminal.

I've no doubt that many people might be offended by such pictures. I assert that the pictures are not offensive, and just because some people may be offended does not make them offensive.

[El Salsero Gringo]

This is the bit I have difficulty with, and why I wrote in an earlier post "just because something has offended people doesn't make it offensive".

Barry, if Livingstone wants to offend people then fair enough. But he's a public servant. When public servants offend sections of the community with off-the-cuff insults to people, that's not acceptable, and deserves an apology. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Barry Shnikov]

If that was the reason for his use of the comparison, and for asking about being a German war criminal, then yes, I think it was a series of racist comments.

I think first we have to decide whether it is possible to use what I had hitherto supposed was a fairly commonplace comparison, that someone who justifies their actions by saying they are doing what they were told to do is using a weak argument that can be demolished by showing that the same argument was employed by concentration camp guards to justify their actions. This is a rhetorical device known as reductio ad absurdum. That is, you take a ridiculous conclusion that is supported by the premise to demonstrate the fallacy of the premise.

I haven't yet seen any argument that persuades me that this specific comparison is, per se, wrong. I note that no-one has come up with any other similar comparison which could be employed.

If that is right, then it can't be a racist comment. If that were true then it would require that of all the people in the world, jewish persons would be the only ones that could not be addressed in this way. Which can't be right.

I should write, as I have not so far, that I'm not entirely happy about the incident, about what KL said and did. Howefver, I remain uncomfortable about the idea that if you say something that pisses off one segment of the community you can be hounded and harrassed until you are forced to apologise or suspended from office.

[Barry Shnikov]

The sensible thing, and the best way to serve the people who elected him, would have been to apologise immediately, and it'd have been over and done with. Now, it looks like stubborness and arrogance is actually harming his ability to do his job.

Most convincing argument I've read. Unanswerable, in fact.

Because if, for example, a soldier gets killed in Iraq at 5.01pm, I want the media to attempt to question the politicians who sent him there immediately, not wait until the following morning. Media exposure is the price of power.

That's silly. Why should anybody have to give an off-the-cuff response in circumstances like that?
Anyway, I do feel that it's OK to bump into a politician or ring him up and ask him for a comment. If he doesn't want to give that comment, and as long as the question is not about personal misdeeds, then in my view the journalist is wrong to continue.
There's a guy who does sports on the Today program, can't remember his name. He's a pest. He'll be interviewing a - football manager, say - and he'll ask "So do you think X should be fined for what he did?" and the manager will say "Well, the disciplinary hearing is not until this afternoon so I'd rather not comment", and the response will be "Yes, but do you think he should be fined?" and I've heard him ask a question four times when the interviewee is saying 'No comment'. IT'S THE SPORT SECTION, DUDE, give it a rest.

[Barry Shnikov]

He's not a private individual taking a stance! He's the Mayor of London being a twat!

I believe that a politician is not obliged to put up with however reporters choose to behave. He or she is entitled to impose some boundaries.

Do you agree?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I think first we have to decide whether it is possible to use what I had hitherto supposed was a fairly commonplace comparison, that someone who justifies their actions by saying they are doing what they were told to do is using a weak argument that can be demolished by showing that the same argument was employed by concentration camp guards to justify their actions. This is a rhetorical device known as reductio ad absurdum. That is, you take a ridiculous conclusion that is supported by the premise to demonstrate the fallacy of the premise.

He was doing the very opposite. He wasn't weakening the journalists argument through reductio ad absurdum, he was using the comparison to inflate the imaginary wrongdoing he thought he was suffering. And in fact, if you read the exchange as reported, it was Livingstone who introduced both the war-criminal and the "doing it because you're paid to" lines. The journalist never made, defended his questioning, or otherwise used that point.

I haven't yet seen any argument that persuades me that this specific comparison is, per se, wrong. I note that no-one has come up with any other similar comparison which could be employed.

If that is right, then it can't be a racist comment. If that were true then it would require that of all the people in the world, jewish persons would be the only ones that could not be addressed in this way. Which can't be right.

Nonsense. If you assume he would have made the same remarks to anyone then (as I said) it wouldn't be a racist insult. But people on this thread seem satisfied (Andy McGregor has said explicitly) that the insult was designed to be especially insulting to the journalist because he was Jewish. That makes it racism.

I should write, as I have not so far, that I'm not entirely happy about the incident, about what KL said and did. Howefver, I remain uncomfortable about the idea that if you say something that pisses off one segment of the community you can be hounded and harrassed until you are forced to apologise or suspended from office.

Why are you uncomfortable with that idea? What proportion or how many segments of the community need to be pissed off before an apology is appropriate?

[Barry Shnikov]

KL was immediately inappropriately aggressive to someone who was just doing his job

...which brings us full circle!

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him up, or to set him up

WHOA!!!

Back up there, chief. Is there any evidence (I don't know of any) that KL is likely to be especially antagonised by a jewish reporter?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I believe that a politician is not obliged to put up with however reporters choose to behave. He or she is entitled to impose some boundaries.

Do you agree?

He's not obliged to put with anything at all. But he didn't take the opportunity to say "no comment", or "talk to my office in the morning", or walk away. What was his first line as reported? "How awful for you, are you having treatment?" - then straight into a character assasination of the journalist.

So yes, he's fully entitled to impose some boundaries. But he has to accept that he can be called to account for how, and in what manner he imposes those boundaries. There's no concept, in my mind, that he has the right to say anything that comes into his head and be exempt from being judged on it. To anyone.

[Barry Shnikov]

Barry, if Livingstone wants to offend people then fair enough. But he's a public servant. When public servants offend sections of the community with off-the-cuff insults to people, that's not acceptable, and deserves an apology. What's so hard to understand about that?

I don't think he necessarily wanted to offend this guy, I think he wanted him to p!ss off.

You could be in a situation where you make strongly adverse remarks about, say, a play without knowing that the playwright has overheard you. You may not have wished to offend him, but why should you apologise about airing your views simply because he's offended? You could if you wished apologise for the offence, but you may choose to say "Well, that's how I felt."

What is the purpose of an apology? Is it a way of saying "What I did was wrong and I regret it?" or is it a way of saying "I see you're upset and I would generally prefer the smallest possible number of people to be upset". The former would not be true, in KL's case, and what would be the value of the latter?

[Barry Shnikov]

He's not obliged to put with anything at all. But he didn't take the opportunity to say "no comment", or "talk to my office in the morning", or walk away. What was his first line as reported? "How awful for you, are you having treatment?" - then straight into a character assasination of the journalist.

You're stipulation would be OK if this were the first occasion on which KL had attempted to get a reporter not to pester him inappropriately. I suspect it was not, in which case he may have more justification than you allow for being impolite.

So yes, he's fully entitled to impose some boundaries. But he has to accept that he can be called to account for how, and in what manner he imposes those boundaries. There's no concept, in my mind, that he has the right to say anything that comes into his head and be exempt from being judged on it. To anyone.

I absolutely agree on your latter point.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't think he necessarily wanted to offend this guy, I think he wanted him to p!ss off.

You'll have to explain to me the difference.

What is the purpose of an apology? Is it a way of saying "What I did was wrong and I regret it?" or is it a way of saying "I see you're upset and I would generally prefer the smallest possible number of people to be upset". The former would not be true, in KL's case, and what would be the value of the latter?

The value of the latter would be that the matter could be allowed to rest by all parties concerned.

I don't see why if an off-the-cuff comment - serving no purpose to anyone and spoken purely to **** off or offend one journalist - demonstrably causes offence to a large number of people why it shouldn't be recognised as an error of judgement to have said it. It's Livingstone's refusal to accept it was an error that has driven this as far as it has come.

[David Bailey]

Don't be absurd: it was Livingstone who started the whole racial thing.

To be fair, Livingstone did not make (and as far as I know, has never made) a comment which could be construed as racist.

And Livingstone being anti-Israeli (or pro-Palestinian) is a legitimate political position - in fact, he'd probably say he was simply supporting an oppressed minority or something. I don't agree with it.

But then again, he's done a lot of things historically (talking to the IRA, controlling fare prices) and recently (gay marriages, congestion charging etc.) that looked extreme or wacky at the time, but in the long run have turned out to be courageous and visionary. So you never know.

Are you saying you think the ES should have taken pains to avoid sending a Jewish reporter? Do you think that London deserves the kind of Mayor for whom being interviewed by a Jew is a 'problem'? Are there any other people that Jews should avoid interviewing in their capacity at Evening Standards journalists? Of course not. What a ridiculous idea.

Nooo.... just that it almost seems too perfect a setup, if you know what I mean? I don't know the backstory, but I'm willing to believe the ES wasn't quite the lily-white innocent it's portrayed as - usually with these things, the real story is more complex than a simple exchange. Or maybe I'm just a born conspiracy theorist.

Don't get me wrong - I think he was bang out of order, I think he should have apologised, and I think the more he tries to smear everyone who disagrees with him - including his own deputy, Nicky Gavron, a daughter of a death camp survivor - the worse he looks.

But I don't think it's really relevant that the guy happened to be Jewish, and I'm not comfortable with portraying KL as an anti-semite. However, I'm completely fine with using the "T-word" to describe him at the moment.

[Barry Shnikov]

He was doing the very opposite. He wasn't weakening the journalists argument through reductio ad absurdum, he was using the comparison to inflate the imaginary wrongdoing he thought he was suffering. And in fact, if you read the exchange as reported, it was Livingstone who introduced both the war-criminal and the "doing it because you're paid to" lines. The journalist never made, defended his questioning, or otherwise used that point.

We differ on this point. It was quick-fire stuff, but the essence of what KL was saying was: "Leave me alone; your pestering is unacceptable, you must exercise judgment in the exercise of your calling and the constant apologia of your profession that you are just doing your job is no more a defence of your behaviour than it was for Nazis under Hitler." ergo reductio ad absurdum.

Nonsense. If you assume he would have made the same remarks to anyone then (as I said) it wouldn't be a racist insult. But people on this thread seem satisfied (Andy McGregor has said explicitly) that the insult was designed to be especially insulting to the journalist because he was Jewish. That makes it racism. Why are you uncomfortable with that idea? What proportion or how many segments of the community need to be pissed off before an apology is appropriate?

I'm not persuaded that saying something that is especially uncomfortable to someone because of their race is thereby a racist remark. Try and convince me.