Context
So there I was idly browsing around the t’internet reading the background to the story of the spat between the ASA and Cranmer. I like to hear from both sides of a debate so that I can make up my own mind. So having read the Cranmer side I thought I would have a look at PinkNews and see what they thought of the issue.
I was mildly surprised at the level of vitriol in the comments. Pink New’s article itself is quite balanced and fair.
Anyway, one of the commentators mentioned the identify of Cranmer. So I thought I’d check this fact out and copied the name into Google and see what turned up. I found this where Damian Thompson laid into Cranmer calling him the creepiest blogger.
Like the Pink News commentators it was full of hatred for Cranmer. I don’t read Cranmer that much though I do have him on my RSS, but I always got the impression that Cranmer doesn’t write hateful abusive articles. So to see a snippet of his writing where he seemed to take pleasure in the fact the Jade Goody had cancer and was about to die surprised me.
So I clicked on the link in Damian’s article to read the full article by Cranmer so that I could get the context of the the snippet.
And the full article was nothing like the snippet that Damian used. The article as a whole was quite fair to Jade and Cranmer was actually happy that Jade had found God. He actually rails into those who criticised Jack Straw for allowing Jack Tweed out of prison so they could marry because he believed that Jade was deserved some compassion.
So after all that, looking into a story and getting side tracked, I come out of it with a better view of Cranmer, a very bad view of Damian Thompson (not that I had any beforehand since I had never read any of his stuff in the Telegraph), and a poor view of the commentators in the Pink News.
And the conclusion? Always click on links and read the original to get the full context.
-
1
May 18, 2012 at 08:52 -
As a regular reader of Cranmer’s blog for a couple of years, I’ve always found his articles to be well thought out, balanced and principled. The venom he has received from certain quarters owes more to his traditional conservative political views and his theologically sound Christian perspective – which he never conceals. That is – of course – anathema to the prevailing leftist mentality which has also infiltrated the Tory Party. Although I don’t share all of his views, I agree with most of them and he has my respect and support. As for Mr Thompson – I think he represents the prevalent world-view…
-
2
May 18, 2012 at 09:50 -
Agreed re Cranmer. He sometimes drives me up the wall, but he is never offensive. I’m right with him regarding the ASA. In my view they are the paper-pushing equivalent of the bovver boys and thugs that the police are trying to keep off the streets.
-
-
3
May 18, 2012 at 09:47 -
I always read the original sources if I can. The internet is our friend; you can usually find the sources somewhere.
The danger lies in other people reading them, giving us a biased summary of what they say, and then trying to tell us what to think as a result.
-
4
May 18, 2012 at 09:59 -
Your point about context is a very good one. Ironically, the whole ASA row stems from Cranmer misrepresenting what the ASA sent him. Cranmer tries to imply that he himself is under investigation – when actually, the ASA just consulted him about the investigation into C4M’s ads.
The ASA rules against the advertiser, not the venue. And it’s not like there’s any consequence if they rule against you anyway. Cranmer saw an official looking letter, panicked and (he claims) spent all his blog revenue on lawyers.
Cranmer has refused to release the full text of what the ASA sent (obviously he could redact any personal information), because he realises it will make him look silly.
He also made some nasty double entendres about “smouldering faggots”. He’s not fair-minded and balanced, he’s ultimately just a homophobe.
That’s not to say that I think the ads should be banned, but I find Cranmer’s hysteria hilarious so I’m glad complaints were made.
If somebody was running ads arguing against interracial marriage because of their ‘traditional values’, I’d hope they’d be investigated. Why is sexual orientation any different from race, apart from the fact that the law hasn’t caught up yet?
-
5
May 18, 2012 at 10:29 -
Interesting. You make an accusation against Cranmer – nasty double entendre – but no link, so we can’t check.
Maybe this sloppy journalism, and sloppy commenting on blogs, is an easy trap into which to fall. I’m sure I have, inadvertently as most such transgressions are, in the past.
By the way, I’ve no axe to grind in this – I haven’t read Cranmer, or Pink News, and don’t often read Thompson. Don’t know the background to the ASA/Cranmer matter (apart from the post on this blog), so won’t give an opinion on that.
-
6
May 18, 2012 at 10:54 -
7
May 18, 2012 at 14:44 -
“Why is sexual orientation any different from ………”
Because 1 x M + 1 x F >>(possibility of) progeny.
Progeny is impossible from 2 x M or 2 x F
The irony is, gays absolutely need heteros, as the source of their future generations.
-
-
8
May 18, 2012 at 10:40 -
“The danger lies in other people reading them […] then trying to tell us what to think as a result.”
So very true, Mark. Everyone summarises what they have read, I do, you do, we all do. The difference comes when you stop saying ‘this is what I think having read this’ and turn it into ‘this is what you should think now I’ve read it’.
Vitriol seems to be the new ‘debate’ on the Internet.
If I had just read Ben’s comment on here, that Cranmer was being homophobic referring to ‘smouldering faggots’ I might have condemned Cranmer for it – but put in context – i.e. he was referring to a particular subset of the homosexual population, ie those who comment on the politically inept ‘Pink News’ and get their knickers in a twist over any and every imagined slight, I don’t find his comment homophobic whatsoever, merely an aptly coined phrase to describe a particular group of people.-
9
May 18, 2012 at 11:53 -
A plague on both their houses.
-
-
10
May 18, 2012 at 11:34 -
Hard to outdo Thompson for nastiness, really.
Problem with context is that, as Ben pointed out, Cranmer has refused to give everyone the full context by publishing all the documentation. He says himself that they were all addressed to third parties, not directly to him, and yet he relies on them to prove the ASA is persecuting, harrassing, intimidating and threatening HIM. When you sift through everything he’s revealed, the evidence for that becomes rather flaky.
I’ve documented the problems with this quite extensively, and hopefully readers will find I’ve done justice to Cranmer’s claims in context (with links!): http://davidlrattigan.com/archbishop-cranmer-versus-advertising-standards/
My conclusion? ASA ham-fisted and dishonest. Cranmer panicky and off-the-rails.
-
11
May 18, 2012 at 20:00 -
“Hard to outdo Thompson for nastiness, really.”
I haven’t read much of Thompson’s output, just the occasional column in the Telegraph, but I haven’t noticed much nastiness. Opinionated, certainly – but what’s the point of opinion pieces that don’t posit an opinion?
As for real nastiness, it would be hard to match the constant bile levelled at Thatcher by parts of the left-leaning press and blogosphere. Maybe one person’s ‘opinion’ can be deemed ‘nastiness’ by another if it happens to suit their agenda to do so?
-
-
12
May 18, 2012 at 12:23 -
For some unknown reason David Rattigan is pursuing an ad hominem agenda based on speculation and his own scurrilous innuendo. This response is now in the public domain:
“His Grace is acting under legal advice and is adhering to that counsel. Please provide a contract drawn up by your lawyers to absolve His Grace of any potential financial costs relating to any harm or injury (perceived or actual) caused to any party in the disclosure of the documents you request. Publication will then swiftly follow (in medium to be instructed) – no problem, no quibbling, no hesitation at all. ”
Over to you.
-
13
May 18, 2012 at 15:07 -
I’m not sure it is an ‘unknown reason’, Your Grace’, La Rattigana says quite clearly that he is concerned that:
“which to most of my fellow gays and liberals, or at least the most vocal ones, makes me look like a total sucker”.
http://davidlrattigan.com/archbishop-cranmer-versus-advertising-standards/
Depending on La Rattigana’s proclivities, this could present a problem…typecasting is so tiresome.
Lead me not into temptation Your Grace…I’ll get me coat.
-
-
14
May 18, 2012 at 12:26 -
I don’t understand why the ASA is getting involved, the complaints should have been dismissed as frivolous.
The message of the advert is simple and of a political nature; support the existing law. Nobody is being mislead or mis-sold anything.
On a wider note I don’t get all this “offence” business. There are views I don’t agree with. There are statements that I might consider in bad taste depending on context but offensive never. Rather than something done to others ‘offence’ has become something that a potential ‘offendee’ actively goes out of their way to seek.
-
15
May 18, 2012 at 13:45 -
16
May 18, 2012 at 14:07 -
Good grief. Bit… intense, this Archbishop Cranmer, isn’t he?
-
17
May 18, 2012 at 16:16 -
The issue isn’t whether he’s intense but whether the ASA are attempting to chill political discourse in favour of their own political favourites.
-
18
May 18, 2012 at 17:43 -
See update, email just in. The ASA has admitted: “We do accept that our first email didn’t state that you were not compelled to respond to us..”
And ‘intense’, you say? Not as intense as someone who dedicates hours in the pedantic pursuit of a complete non-issue in the hope of scurrilously slandering their victim with innuendo. That sort of intensity is incomprehensible to the reasoned and rational mind.
-
19
May 18, 2012 at 17:55 -
“The ASA has admitted: ‘We do accept that our first email didn’t state that you were not compelled to respond to us.’
Thank you for that, Archbishop. Confirms what I clearly said on my blog about the ASA, then.
-
20
May 18, 2012 at 20:03 -
….but not necessarily what you said about the Archbish….
-
-
-
-
21
May 18, 2012 at 18:03 -
An interesting blog…
May I stray completely from the point and be the first on here to congratulate various contributors, MOST PARTICULARLY Anna herself on the splendid news that the Portugese have finally succumbed to common sense and dropped all attempts to extradite Graham Mitchell – the subject of massive work by Ms. Raccoon and others, who campaigned to the Home Secretary to halt this nonsensical abuse of the European Arrest Warrant system. Anna/Susanne was much more than a blogger. She is/was a force for good and for justice. Well done Anna!
-
22
May 18, 2012 at 18:12 -
Thank you Frankie, it’s been kind of difficult keeping my mouth shut this afternoon!
There was a cheer ringing round Raccoon Towers (where I still keep a bed sit!) this morning, when we heard that the Portuguese had taken their tanks off Graham’s front lawn.
One of those days when if I was ever going to miss blogging, it was today – but on the other hand, it’s jolly nice being on this side of the board – all the fun and none of the responsibility! -
25
May 18, 2012 at 20:28 -
So pleased that Graham is free, Anna. Happy retirement! Was busy with stuff going on in this city this week so couldn’t send you best wishes before.
-
26
May 21, 2012 at 14:03 -
I used to quite like Cranmer, but his ov
Comments are closed.
{ 27 comments }