November 21, 2007
Smoking and British journalism
The great thing about British, as opposed to American journalism, is that in Britain you can get away with statements of monumental vagueness.Here is a fine example from this week’s Spectator. Norman Stone - a historian who once lectured to me (and others) at Cambridge, before emigrating to Turkey, via Oxford - is the author of this week’s Spec diary.
He writes that - "I have read somewhere that at the time of the Marshall Plan - announced when I was six in 1947 - we smoked 90% of our dollar earnings?" This statement prompts several questions:
a) Can you remember where you read this, Norman? b) By "we" do you mean the British population? c) What kind of a mind would try to calculate the percentage of Britain’s dollar earnings that was spent on fags? d) Does this figure sound even remotely plausible? e) What would happen to the Spectator if a New Yorker style fact-checker was let loose there?
Even at Cambridge in the 1980s, Stone stood out for the amount that he smoked and drank. His Spectator diary praises the Turks for their commitment to smoking. (And Ataturk, one of Stone’s heroes, was a pretty fiercesome drinker, as well.) As someone who has recently started smoking again, I suppose I should share Stone’s dismay at the current crackdown in Britain - in particular the rule against smoking indoors.
But, actually, I think I am in favour of the ban on lighting up in the office. The only time I get a breath of fresh air is when I have to go outside for a cigarette.
OK to return smoking, as long as you’re not Stoned.
Well, actually, just from this picture, I like him already:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2198091.ece
Posted by: RCS | November 21st, 2007 at 8:22 pm | Report this commentI write reviews for the Spectator a couple of times a year, and as a Canadian (and former magazine editor) I’ve always been amazed at the willingness of British publications to print almost anything an author writes — leaving the responsibility for being accurate entirely with the author. I suppose the theory is that an author will try very hard to avoid the personal humiliation of error, knowing that there is no editor standing by to save him or her. But I’m pretty sure this theory is not borne out by practice, alas.
Posted by: Ian Garrick Mason | November 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 am | Report this commentIan Garrick Mason: “…leaving the responsibility for being accurate entirely with the author.”
This raises the very interesting issue of a principles-based approach to regulation of any sort (as per FSA, IFRS, Red Book, urban planning in the UK, and - so it seems - British journalism) versus a rules-based approach (FASB, civil law procedures, and generally speaking - anything continental). It may be true that there isn’t one simple answer to such a question (though such an attitude in itself constitutes a meta principles-based approach), however at least from an aesthetical point of view, I myself much prefer principles over rules, which are more in line with Adam Smith - Friedrich Hayek. If beauty is truth, then it is indeed correct to leave the responsibility of being correct entirely with the author.
Posted by: RCS | November 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentDear Gideon,
I am really surprised that you are a smoker. I thought you were a sportsman (or at least a sports’ fan).
Have you seen any exciting football matches, lately? Any genius bets on England’s footballers?
Are you planning to go to Switzerland for reasons other than attending Davos?
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 am | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
I am also quite surprised that I am a smoker. I had given up for a couple of years - and I will give up again, at some point.
But please do not confuse an interest in football, with actual physical fitness. If you doubt the point take a look at the average England fan.
You ask about my travel plans. I have just been in Switzerland on a football related mission (interviewing Michel Platini). I will go again for Davos. I’m going to the Gulf for the first time for an IISS conference in Bahrain - which I’m really looking forward to (both the trip and the conference.) I might go to Iowa and/or New Hampshire some time in the next month. I’m skipping Annapolis because the timing is lousy for my column.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | November 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pm | Report this commentGR”I’m going to the Gulf for the first time for an IISS conference in Bahrain - which I’m really looking forward to (both the trip and the conference.”
Oh good!…This is a very important conference. It was at this conference last year (around Dec 6) a Saudi Intel official attacked US policy on Iraq publically for the first time and linked US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to increasing Islamic militancy in the region…I was amazed there was not one article about this at the time…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I sincerely hope you will enjoy your trip to the Persian Gulf. I wonder if you get to see anything beyond the posh hotels and the touristy desert safaris and the cocktail party on a dhow (skip the latter, they are not safe!).
I was in Bahrain in April. As you know it used to be part of Iran (stolen by the perfidious Albion) but, despite it being a supposedly Arab country, most people have a good knowledge of Farsi and extensive Iranian ancestory. I hope, you will be able to visit Iran soon.
As for the charade at Annapolis, FT’s optimistic editorial notwithstanding, I think it says a lot about its usefulness that Greece and Senegal are invited but Iran and Hamas are not. You are managing your time very well by giving it a wide berth. It will come to nothing as the intentions behind it are cynical and propagandistic.
Keep well.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentSir,
Posted by: Vanessa Landaverde | December 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am | Report this commentIn your article you say that small nations are more likely to have a better human developpent. However this can only be the case if the neighbour countries help, or if the country is lucky to get a “godfather” (which is the case with the new european states). But think of other regions in the world, such as Central America which is an ensemble of small states that got their independence from Spain 200 years ago. Even with small populations and some natural resources, none of them (apart from Costa Rica which has received a lot of american investment) has been able to reach a descent human developpent. I think the title of your article should be “For nations, Small is beautiful, with a little help from their friends”.