Michael.Blackburn.Poet.

Philip Roth. Photograph: Orjan F Ellingvag / Dagbladet / Corbis

Philip Roth’s late run of productivity has long been a source of wonder in the literary world, with his latest novel coming out this week less than a year after the last, and another already complete. But the 76-year-old’s own energy is not, according to him at any rate, any reflection of vibrant life in fiction itself. Roth has long been pessimistic about the survival of the novel in a gaudy, short-attention-span culture, but his latest prophesy is one of his bleakest yet, predicting that the form will dwindle to a “cultic” minority enthusiasm within 25 years.

The author believes that the concentration and focus required to read a novel is becoming less and less prevalent, as potential readers turn instead to computers or to television. “I was being optimistic about 25 years really. I think it’s going to be cultic. I think always people will be reading them but it will be a small group of people. Maybe more people than now read Latin poetry, but somewhere in that range,” Roth told Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast.

He said it was “the print that’s the problem, it’s the book, the object itself”. “To read a novel requires a certain amount of concentration, focus, devotion to the reading. If you read a novel in more than two weeks you don’t read the novel really. So I think that kind of concentration and focus and attentiveness is hard to come by – it’s hard to find huge numbers of people, large numbers of people, significant numbers of people, who have those qualities,” he said.

And the advent of e-readers such as the Kindle will make no difference. “The book can’t compete with the screen. It couldn’t compete [in the] beginning with the movie screen. It couldn’t compete with the television screen, and it can’t compete with the computer screen,” Roth said. “Now we have all those screens, so against all those screens a book couldn’t measure up.”

Roth ‘s new novel, The Humbling, is published later this week (and has already received a scathing review from the Observer’s William Skidelsky, who called it “a piece of scandalous frippery”).

Roth told Brown that – like The Humbling’s hero Simon Axler, an ageing stage actor who has “lost his magic” – he worries about running out of ideas. “Routinely when I finish a book, I think ‘What will I do? Where will I get an idea?’ And a kind of low-level panic sets in. And then eventually something happens,” he said. “I think I write and publish as often as I do because I can’t bear being without a book to work on … I don’t feel I have this to say or that to say or this story to tell, but I know I want to be occupied with the writing process while I’m living.”

Roth’s pessimism about the future of the novel is not a recent moodswing. Talking to the Observer’s Robert McCrum in 2001, he said that “I’m not good at finding ‘encouraging’ features in American culture. I doubt that aesthetic literacy has much of a future here.”

Philip Roth reckons the novel as a literary form will become ‘cultic’ within 25 years.

Careers advice for seven-year-olds

(UKPA) – 1 hour ago

Primary school children are to get careers advice from the age of seven under a new scheme to encourage them to develop aspirations early on in life.

Under plans drawn up by Schools Secretary Ed Balls, primaries will offer career-related learning, as well as opportunities to experience university life and the world of work, to children aged 7-11.

Mr Balls also outlined an ambition to provide careers advice through to the age of 18, as well as giving every young person access to a mentor who can guide them through the process of preparing for adult life.

Launching the new scheme alongside Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, Mr Balls will say that a “radical change” is needed in careers advice, as it is “too late” for children to start thinking about their future at 14, when they start choosing subjects at secondary school.

He said: “I want this generation of young people to be able to look back and say their careers advice and guidance was relevant and gave them informed options.”

End-of-year assemblies at primary school could be used to introduce children to career options, and universities could form links with primaries to get pupils thinking about higher education from an early age, he said.

“It is often too late for children to start thinking about this at 14 when they are influenced from when they are seven, eight and nine,” said Mr Balls.

Ferguson recalled his own father’s advice for him to take a tool-working apprenticeship and said it was important for teachers, parents and businesses to “spot talent early on and nurture children to achieve the best they can”.

The football legend added: “Parents who want their children to be footballers know how important it is that they start playing young. But that’s not just true for football - if parents want their children to be doctors or lawyers then they should make sure their children get to see something of those careers as well.”

Careers advice will be made available through internet social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube and a dedicated online mentoring scheme, and a £10 million fund will support innovative careers education.

Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Remember: your children belong to the state now.

october 8, 2009

THE WESTMINSTER CONSPIRACY

Former BBC Director General, Greg Dyke, On The Media-Political Opposition To Radical Change

Last month, Greg Dyke, who was the BBC’s director general from 2000-2004, described the BBC as part of a “conspiracy” preventing the “radical changes” needed to UK democracy. Speaking at the Liberal Democrat party’s conference, Dyke said:

“The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties, including this one - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy.” (Brian Wheeler, ‘Dyke in BBC “conspiracy” claim,’ BBC website, September 20, 2009; http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8265628.stm)

Dyke argued there had never been a greater separation between the “political class” and the public:

“I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom [Baroness Sarah Hogg] was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly - the Labour cabinet - who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC.

“Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don’t want anything to change. It’s not in their interests.”

Dyke said the MPs’ expenses scandal had been “British democracy’s Berlin Wall moment” but the opportunity to change the system was fading. He added:

“It’s time to be radical. Our current model was designed for the 18th Century. It doesn’t fit 21st Century Britain.”

Dyke was also candid about political interference with the BBC. He discussed an internal review of the BBC’s political coverage carried out at the beginning of the decade, to which all political parties were asked to contribute. He said: “there was a lot of pressure from the government of the day not to change anything… A lot of the governors were what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and…. maybe they were right - it’s not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system. I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn’t get anywhere.”

If these comments were extraordinary, the media response to them was predictable - close to zero coverage in the national UK press. Dyke’s speech was covered in three sentences in the Belfast Telegraph on September 21. A longer piece appeared in the Herald (Glasgow) on the same day. In response to our prompting, the website Journalism.co.uk covered the story on September 22. They then contacted Roy Greenslade, who covered the story on his Guardian website blog a day later - the sole national mainstream mention. Greenslade wrote of the story:

“… the national press appears to have ignored it, or missed it altogether. Yet the claim should have generated widespread interest. If true, it requires more probing. If false, it should severely dent Dyke’s credibility”. (Greenslade, ‘Dyke’s BBC conspiracy theory,’ Greenslade Blog, September 23, 2009;
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/sep/23/bbc-greg-dyke)

On September 28, one week after the speech was reported by the BBC, Media Guardian published an article by Maggie Brown titled: ‘When trust breaks down: The BBC Trust is under siege from politicians of all parties, rival broadcasters, corporation staff and the viewing public. But is it fulfilling its remit - and, if not, what is the alternative?’ Greg Dyke was mentioned, but there was no reference to his whistleblowing comments.

Dyke’s comments were important, providing a rare moment of honesty from such a senior insider. They were of clear public interest and doubtless chimed with the concerns of many people outraged by the scandal of MPs’ expenses. As discussed, the story was broken on the BBC’s own website - a high-profile source familiar to mainstream journalists. So what could explain the lack of interest from all mainstream national newspapers?

The answer is found in the story itself: the national media are indeed part of an elite system which is not interested in discussing, much less effecting, radical political change. Dissident outsiders attempting to challenge the status quo are dismissed as marginal figures. But even high-profile insiders - celebrity managers, journalists, writers, dramatists and diplomats - are ignored.

On September 23, we wrote to the BBC’s Brian Wheeler, the journalist who broke the story.

Dear Brian

Hope you’re well. I was impressed and amazed by your story, ‘Dyke in BBC “conspiracy” claim.’

I would have thought it was important news of great interest to the public that a former BBC director general had described the BBC as part of a “conspiracy” preventing the “radical changes” needed to UK democracy. Isn’t it extraordinary that not a single UK national newspaper has reported your story? What do you make of it?

Best wishes

David Edwards

Wheeler replied the same day:

Hi David

Thanks for your comments. I’m afraid I have no idea why the story wasn’t picked up by the nationals, although I think Media Guardian may have done something on it. It’s sometimes hard to predict which stories will get followed up.

Brian

Wheeler was of course reluctant to speculate (and to reply to our second email) because BBC journalists are not allowed to express their personal opinions - or so we are to believe.

Last month, Milton Coleman, senior editor at The Washington Post, sent a memo to staff on the issue of use of “individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use”. The memo warned staff to “remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists”. It added:

“All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens… Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything-including photographs or video-that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online.” (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-wapos-social-media-guidelines-paint-staff-into-virtual-corner/)

These rules echo BBC editorial guidelines. In 2005, we asked the BBC’s World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, if he thought George Bush hoped to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. Reynolds replied:

“I cannot get into a direct argument about his policies myself! Sorry.” (Email to Media Lens, September 5, 2005)

Reynolds explained to one of our readers:

“You are asking for my opinion about the war in Iraq yet BBC correspondents are not allowed to have opinions!” (Forwarded to Media Lens, October 22, 2005)

As these comments suggest, media guidelines require that journalists relinquish, not just “personal privileges”, but also moral responsibility. Journalists are not free to declare their “bias” even in abhorring mass murder, war crimes and climate chaos, if doing so “could be used to tarnish” their employers’ “journalistic credibility”. The problem is that the people with the power to do the tarnishing are overwhelmingly of the right - big business and political centres of power dominated by big business.

In reality, the demand for ‘balance’ means that journalists can say pretty much what they like in favouring powerful interests, but they will be severely castigated for losing ‘balance’ when they criticise the wrong people. Thus we find that it is not ‘biased’ to suggest that Britain and America are committed to spreading democracy around the world, but it +is+ ‘biased’ to suggest that they are responsible for crimes in the Third World. In short, the demand for ‘balance’ is a weapon of thought control - it is a way of policing and enforcing bias in media performance.

As Greg Dyke made clear, the truth hidden behind the sham of ‘balance’ is that political journalism works hard to protect an elite system of which it is very much a part.

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson. Ask him to respond to Greg Dyke’s claim that the BBC is part of a “Westminster conspiracy” to obstruct radical change to the political system:
 
Email: mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

A much-under-reported speech by Greg Dyke on the threat of the political class to democracy.