Liddle made the claim in his Spectator blog, where there was a vigorous debate about the accuracy of his figures. One reader, however, took it to the PCc, who ruled that neither Liddle nor the publisher had been able to prove the claim was correct.
The ruling seems to depend on two things:
- seeing crime stats as objective data not subject to controversy;
- treating blogs as if they were features in a magazine or newspaper.
Figuring facts
Crime stats are political constructs, not mathematical certainties. Especially under this government. And especially with an election coming up. It makes you wonder where has the PCc been since 1997?
Blog off
The PCc says that it “expects the same standards in newspaper and magazine blogs that it would expect in comment pieces that appear in print editions”.
Could possibly comment
Wrong. Blogs don’t work like that. The place to challenge a blogger is in the comments box. That’s what it’s for. And that’s what was happening on Liddle’s blog. So why was the PCc called in?
Rounding up the usual suspects
Liddle was unlucky. It could easily have been (and nearly was) Jan Moir, or Richard Littlejohn, or Melanie Philips.
Why? They’re the ones who are off-message. Guardianista and BBC-style bloggers tend to peddle establishment views (PC, pro-Green, pro-state, anti-Israel, anti-Christian, etc.)
Same old same old
They’re entertaining enough, though sometimes a bit po-faced. But they always play safe. They go right to their readers’ comfort zone, and preach to the converted.
There’s no challenge there. In the marketplace of ideas, they’re a cartel.
Thinking the unsayable
So any digerati attacks on well known bloggers tend to focus on the outriders rather than the herd. The aim is to make certain things unsayable, maybe even unthinkable.
I’m not sure the PCc should be helping them out.