[Op/Ed] Let's Play a Game: Anarchist or Photo Op? (?SFW)

[Zaune]

Via Techdirt. (Might take a while to load.)

from the take-your-pic dept

Last week, there were student protests in the UK, concerning massively increased fees, and apparently on the fringes of the protests there was some violence, which of course the press picked up on, because "if it bleeds, it leads." Or, in this case, if it "kicks in a glass window, it leads." Apparently a whole bunch of newspapers all carried the same photo on their front covers. I've posted all nine such covers after the jump, but here are a couple just to give you the idea:

However, as some have noted, what may be more interesting is that if you look at a wider lens version of a similar image, you see that the guy kicking in the glass appears to be surrounded by a ton of photographers. In fact, the whole thing almost looks like a setup, with every single newspaper cropping out the photographers:
(too wide to hotlink)
It looks like the wide angle shot was taken either seconds before, or seconds after the shot used by all the papers, but it's pretty close. Of course, with so many photographers, it does seem a bit odd that the newspapers all seemed to use a single photograph for their covers. What happened to the images from the others? Anyway, see the nine covers after the jump.

Says something about the press in this country, doesn't it? I won't link to the rest of them here, but even the usually-reliable* Guardian got in on the act this time round.

Still, I must confess to taking a certain malicious and somewhat childish satisfaction in this turn of events, even if the supposed 'anarchists' (actually the Rent-a-Mob division of the Socialist Workers Party the way I heard it) were being egged on by the press. At least it ensured the Tories bothered to notice that some people might actually be unhappy about what they're doing, which is more than I can say for the protests against going into Iraq.

* Relative to the rest of the British print media, anyway.

[TC27]

The Tories wont mind - the rioting element (unfairly given 90% of the coverage) paints the students in a bad light to most of the population and students dont usually vote for them anyway.

Nick Clegg will be sweating it though...probaly one thing to propose free degrees for all when your the third party - suddenly you find youself in power and have to actually figure out how to pay for stuff!

[Zixinus]

However, as some have noted, what may be more interesting is that if you look at a wider lens version of a similar image, you see that the guy kicking in the glass appears to be surrounded by a ton of photographers. In fact, the whole thing almost looks like a setup, with every single newspaper cropping out the photographers:

I recall something similar seen on Newswipe. Can't remember when. It was during the G20 summit I think. The reporters were so expecting a riot that they surrounded a guy who broke some glass wall.

This is nothing really new. Violence attracts the media so much that flies look confused about what they want with shit.

[Zaune]

You call 61 seats out of a 350-odd majority power? That's not even enough for damage control, even with our fucked-up "vote how you're told to vote or get kicked off the party ticket" party-political culture. And as for the two font bench seats they were handed, Nick Clegg could hardly have been given less real power if he'd been kicked upstairs to the Lords, and if there's a more thankless and depressing job in politics than being Business Secretary in the middle of a recession then I'd love to know what it is; I'd lay any money you care to name that it was handed to Vince Cable because none of the Tories wanted it.
Not that a coalition with Labour would have been much better; they're at least as culpable for the economic mess we're in as the Conservatives were under Thatcher, their civil liberties record is far from stellar (I can't fucking believe I just said that about a British political party) and they dragged us into Iraq over the vocal objections of nearly everyone because Tony Blair thought it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Zixinus]

Here we are, go to 3:48 for the relevant part:

You can't see the guy smashing the window from all the cameras.

[Teebs]

You call 61 seats out of a 350-odd majority power? That's not even enough for damage control, even with our fucked-up "vote how you're told to vote or get kicked off the party ticket" party-political culture.

Part of the government = in power.

And as for the two font bench seats they were handed, Nick Clegg could hardly have been given less real power if he'd been kicked upstairs to the Lords, and if there's a more thankless and depressing job in politics than being Business Secretary in the middle of a recession then I'd love to know what it is; I'd lay any money you care to name that it was handed to Vince Cable because none of the Tories wanted it.

You mean the five front bench seats they have - the two you named plus environment, chief secretary to the treasury and Scotland.

I'm not sure you actually had a point in there other than not liking the Liberal Democrats but I thought I should correct a couple of factual inaccuracies.

[Zaune]

Part of the government = in power.

Point taken, but being in power is not necessarily the same as actually having power.

You mean the five front bench seats they have - the two you named plus environment, chief secretary to the treasury and Scotland.

They have five Cabinet seats, which is not the same as being a front bencher; I could be entirely wrong, but it was my understanding that the Cabinet has a hierarchy, with the front bench being the top tier.

But my central point pertained to the number of Liberal Democrat members with important Cabinet positions, which going by Wikipedia is not many. The only departments or Ministries where a Liberal Democrat is actually in charge are Energy and Climate Change and Business, Innovation and Skills. The first one presumably used to be Environment, and the second one is apparently Education mixed with... something to do with the economy, I assume. (Which does not fill me with enthusiasm for the direction the education system will be taking over the next five years, I might add.) And I'm not exactly certain what the Secretary of State for Scotland does, but the Scottish Nationalists must have thought all their Christmases had come at once when they saw the events at the top of the page kicking off, so that's likely to be academic before long.

And just to reiterate, the office of Deputy Prime Minister is a bit like being Vice-President of the United States, but without the automatic right of succession if the PM meets with an unfortunate accident. He's basically there to provide holiday cover.

I'm not sure you actually had a point in there other than not liking the Liberal Democrats but I thought I should correct a couple of factual inaccuracies.

That's exactly what my point wasn't. I seem to be the only Liberal Democrat voter who actually thinks Nick Clegg did the right thing.

I don't know what assurances the Liberal Democrats received from the Tories and how faithfully they've been kept, but I don't see what else he could have done. They would have had to bring every minor party in the House into coalition with Labour to have a mandate even on paper, though it would've been a stretch even if they'd talked everyone from UKIP to Sinn Fein into signing up, and the resulting 'rainbow coalition' would have been good for the ratings of BBC Parliament but not much else. Refusing to participate in coalition with anybody would still leave us with David Cameron in Number 10, but with a deadlocked Parliament unable to make any decisions at all and the entire public sector stuck in a holding pattern until the next election or the outbreak of civil war, whichever came first. The phrase "Kobayashi Maru" springs to mind.

So he did the only thing he could. He gave the Tories the power they needed to at least make some decisions, even if they were the wrong ones, gambling on being able to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. It was a long shot that didn't pay off and it's probably going to cost Nick Clegg his seat come the next election, but at least he tried.

[El Moose Monstero]

Here we are, go to 3:48 for the relevant part: [youtube]snip[/youtube]

You can't see the guy smashing the window from all the cameras.

That was G20 a few years ago, not the current protests which are about the education fees, although his comments about media portrayal remain applicable.

[Teebs]

Point taken, but being in power is not necessarily the same as actually having power.

It's not very difficult to look through the coalition agreement and see large numbers of concessions made to Liberal Democrat policy.

They have five Cabinet seats, which is not the same as being a front bencher; I could be entirely wrong, but it was my understanding that the Cabinet has a hierarchy, with the front bench being the top tier.

No front bench just means Cabinet, or even plain old ministers which is an even wider definition.

But my central point pertained to the number of Liberal Democrat members with important Cabinet positions, which going by Wikipedia is not many. The only departments or Ministries where a Liberal Democrat is actually in charge are Energy and Climate Change and Business, Innovation and Skills. The first one presumably used to be Environment, and the second one is apparently Education mixed with... something to do with the economy, I assume. (Which does not fill me with enthusiasm for the direction the education system will be taking over the next five years, I might add.) And I'm not exactly certain what the Secretary of State for Scotland does, but the Scottish Nationalists must have thought all their Christmases had come at once when they saw the events at the top of the page kicking off, so that's likely to be academic before long.

I don't think that's disproportionate to the numbers of seats gained by the parties and generally I'd be more interested in seeing what policy comes out than in who actually holds the seat.

And just to reiterate, the office of Deputy Prime Minister is a bit like being Vice-President of the United States, but without the automatic right of succession if the PM meets with an unfortunate accident. He's basically there to provide holiday cover.

Actually I think the UK Parliamentary system, particularly in a coalition is all about soft-power and that Clegg's position is basically that of a very powerful coordinator. It's not like the Vice-Presidency because he has his own major power base that can remove the government and is elected in his own right. If I had to guess at motives for him taking the position I would guess that the idea was that he would be able to provide an example of Lib Dems leading the country which would scupper the 'not ready for government' arguments. Whether it has worked or will work is a very different question of course.

That's exactly what my point wasn't. I seem to be the only Liberal Democrat voter who actually thinks Nick Clegg did the right thing.

I don't know what assurances the Liberal Democrats received from the Tories and how faithfully they've been kept, but I don't see what else he could have done. They would have had to bring every minor party in the House into coalition with Labour to have a mandate even on paper, though it would've been a stretch even if they'd talked everyone from UKIP to Sinn Fein into signing up, and the resulting 'rainbow coalition' would have been good for the ratings of BBC Parliament but not much else. Refusing to participate in coalition with anybody would still leave us with David Cameron in Number 10, but with a deadlocked Parliament unable to make any decisions at all and the entire public sector stuck in a holding pattern until the next election or the outbreak of civil war, whichever came first. The phrase "Kobayashi Maru" springs to mind.

Well then I really don't see what your point was. Although I am another Lib Dem who thinks he did the right thing.