David Aaronovitch
Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall
Miami, Monday, and one of the big stories on the US networks is the disappearance of Oprah Winfrey from the Obama campaign trail, where once she was a highly visible platform-booster.
The back story has been that Winfrey and associates have taken fright at the flak that her pro-Obama stance has been attracting from fans on her website, oprah.com. “Hundreds” of angry e-mailers have followed up an original posting from a woman who accused Winfrey of having put race before gender and therefore of being a traitor to women. The tone of these postings ranges from regretful, through reproachful to vituperative. And although most observers here expect Winfrey to re-enter the campaign, the e-mails have, at the very least, caused her to pause for a moment.
Such an important moment of doubt, based, as it seems to be, on what folk write on the internet, comes exactly a decade after the most celebrated blogger in US politics then, Matt Drudge, broke the Monica Lewinsky story. Since then, and in an accelerated way in Britain over the past couple of years, I have sensed a mixture of doubt, defiance and weird deference when it comes to the way that media people, politicians and public institutions treat what emerges from cyberspace. We variously attempt to grasp it all, to use it, to hold it back, to defeat it, to colonise it. We hold online polls, open ourselves to comments, count the hits on our sites and, here at The Times, even provide for our journalists a ranking of the key words used by readers searching the online site.
For the most part it is sensible for organisations such as the BBC or newspapers to use and develop new communications technology. The problem lies not in the use or the development of the internet, but in evaluating what it really is, and in assessing its ethics and etiquettes.
A few weeks ago someone sent me a link to the website belonging to Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Last year I found myself debating against him at Trinity College, Dublin, on the Middle East. Though I didn't agree with him on much and wondered why he was wearing a kilt, I found him pleasant enough, especially when, afterwards, he rather disarmingly admitted that he didn't know a lot about Israel, about which he'd just been pontificating.
So to his site, where Mr Murray was highly critical of me being allowed by the BBC to interview Tony Blair last year on the basis that I was “a leading neocon, pro-war, pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim propagandist”. But if I was slightly saddened to see Mr Murray seduced by the adjectival Pavlovianism of the anti-war movement, I was staggered by what he said about me personally, describing me as “that sleazy fat neo-con slob Aaronovitch - someone should buy that man a picture for his attic”. Of course, I am too fat; “neocon” is the new all-purpose political accusation; though scrupulously clean, I occasionally underdress - and if Mr Murray feels so obviously superior in physical aesthetics, then I am sure The Times can provide the reader with photographs of us both to enable a comparison.
But my point is that Craig Murray - until recently a diplomat employed by the Foreign Office - certainly didn't give vent to this stuff to my face when he had the opportunity, nor, I think, would he ever have said anything so abusive when being interviewed on radio or television or in writing for a newspaper. It could only have been done in the particular atmosphere of the web.
Actually it got worse. Mr Murray's readers then added comments in which I was further accused, along with others, of being a “Jewish racist of the deepest and most awful sort” and of possessing a “Weltanschauung of Jewish supremacy”. Mr Murray's response was “Well, yes up to a point”, before reminding the more excitable and probably libellous posters that they shouldn't forget that were some good Jews too.
Now suppose, that I were to write an article for this paper in which I began by telling readers that Craig Murray was not just wrong and oddly ill-informed, but that he was also - let's say - a chinless, adulterous, anti-Semitic clown whose vanity and incontinence had led to him damaging those very causes that he claimed to care for so much. My editors wouldn't have stood for it, and the readers would have thought less of me for it. Yet in several of the more lionised and supposedly political websites that influence some of our journalists, this is exactly the level of debate.
One reason for this libellous intemperance is the odd anonymity conferred by the internet, and the peculiar sense of indemnity it seems to offer. It is almost as if Mr Murray doesn't quite realise that his abusiveness will be seen as abuse. It's a psychology that means that we should be careful before we assume that we know what this or that internet eruption actually signifies.
Take a recent Times Online presidential primaries poll. On the Democrat side Barack Obama won fairly handsomely. This might correlate to internet demographics, since younger voters tend towards the Illinois senator. But for the Republicans, Ron Paul, the relatively unknown extreme libertarian, got 55 per cent in the poll. And indeed, Mr Paul has a large internet footprint, but when it comes to actual votes in New Hampshire, for example, he was way down the field with 8 per cent.
Such an anomalous result, unsurprisingly, meant there was an immediate suspicion of a “click-in” campaign by the Paulites, and in the same way some in the US believe that the Clinton camp somehow orchestrated the Winfrey deluge. Both are possible, but both miss the point about self-selection under conditions of anonymity. It is simply the case that when it comes to the internet, we don't know what the results of polls mean in terms of their wider significance. We don't know who is voting or why, and we can't know how representative they are. Winfrey has millions of viewers, as compared with the hundreds who posted to criticise her. And what can we do with the information that, over the weekend, the 73rd, 74th and 75th most searched for words on the Times website were, in reverse order, “Nissan qashqai”, “matt skelton” and “man boobs”?.

David Aaronovitch is a writer, broadcaster and commentator on international politics and the media. He writes for The Times Comment page on Tuesdays. He has previously written for The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent, winning numerous accolades, including Columnist of the Year 2003 and the 2001 Orwell prize for journalism. He has appeared on the satirical TV current affairs programme Have I Got News For You and made radio broadcasts on historical topics
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Why good girls pay good money for bad-girl baubles

Search The Times Births, Marriages & Deaths
£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£30,000 base, £100,000 OTE
Riches Consulting
London/South
with annexe accommodation and 5.25 acres
£1,100,000
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I just pulled up this website to check on Ron Paul and not a word. Amother controlled media company.. Every one please goodle Ron Paul.
charles l. rosaly, Fort Lauderdale, U.S.A. Florida
Who does Ron Paul supports search the internet for news? Because the major news networks blacklist him. If the news people reported on Ron Paul as much as they do the other candidates his numbers would be much higher in the primaries.
Give the man a fair chance.
Vote Ron Paul!!
tom, scottsdale, az
Judging by your photo, I'd say you were darkly handsome, a definite touch of the Heathcliffes.
Rosemary, Portsmouth,
I agree with Julian, Twickenham (except the free porn part) . I think the Internet is good therapy. People can use it to voice their opinion, anger, fears and worries in anonymity, instead of penting it up leading to violence or suicides. You can learn and get support from each other, and in general gauge people,s feelings on certain issues. Nowadays people are afraid to speak up or confront others in public for fear of being kicked, or stabbed to death on the streets. Especially young people thus don,t get feedback on what society thinks acceptable or not. In my opinion internetpolls are not less reliable than other anonymous polls. You do have to interpret them intelligently though. (millions of viewers, as compared with the hundreds who posted to criticise). The majority of people don,t abuse the internet in the area of voicing their feelings.
cherrypie, Barcelona , Spain
R. Paul - "the extreme libertarian" got second in Nevada. Boy those Las Vegans must be proper kooks! Right David? Bush should intern those nutjobs as terrorists!
Just off now to another ace media website - the BBC - to view again Jane Standley's piece on the Salomon building having collapsed at the World Trade Centre, whilst she's reporting live with the said buiding still standing behind her. Oh, yeah, whilst I'm there, I might call up the BBC's version of Sir David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto, you know the one where the bit where she says Osama Bin Laden was murdered some time ago was cut out - can't think why? Ah, well gotta trust auntie Beeb 'aven't ya!
Keep up the great work!
lickspittle, fiscalhaven, Cayman Islands
Your comments are sadly too true. I find that in an International Politics undergraduate course it is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of students to say anything against even the most aggressive Islamism or in favour of Israel's right to exist. Sad.
Thom Hutchins, University of Warwick, UK
so what should we do about the internet then, ban it?
andrew peace, st albans, uk
The problem is simple - newspapers give columnists free rein to abuse the public's opinions and beliefs daily. So today you can tell me that anyone who is against war is merely demonstrating a Pavlovian reponse to lefty adjectival seduction and that's OK, but if I suggest that your right-wing support of protectionist thuggery and occupation of others' land is pro-Zionist that's not. Perhaps, along with all professional opinionists, you should consider that if you wish not to receive abuse you should stop handing it out.
eric campbell, harrogate, ik
Anonymity and a sense of indemnity are indeed major drawbacks of the internet. Therefore, one can fully understand why an increasing number of sites are scrutinized by web masters iin order to maintain an elementary respect for standard ethics. It is not a question of censorship but a logical reaction to a profound misinterpretation of the concept of free expression.
Ray Massart, Hombeek, Belgium
Internet abuse seems like the equivalent of venting spleen in the car. I keep up a running commentary of invective about my fellow motorists, but I am sure there are some decent humans among them really, who are doing their best to engage the clutch as the traffic lights turn green.
As you suggest, its about anonymity, but perhaps also about that internal monologue we all have that is perhaps not so complimentary about others, spilling over into the public domain.
wrinkled weasel, Edinburgh,
Mr. Aronovitch,Good article.I feel sorry that the world doesn't know how to interperet polls on the internet,so it can use them to sway voters.Of Course I do,I really do.Hee Hee.
ron, toronto,
If it's any consolation, I think you're a pretty good bloke and I like your articles while Mr Murray's views are totally uninteresting (and predictable for a NL apparatchisk).
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
A neocon, I had you down as a "pinko commi" waiting for the call from Gordon to state the new socialist state. No sooner has Brown got his hands on the keys to Number 10 and we are plagued by floods, run on the banks house price crashed and now upsetting the police and civil servants and now he is going round with the begging bowl for Chinese and Indian money to bail him out of the mess he has made of the UK's finance.
Hunte, Croydon, UK
The net allows all of us to drop any false diplomacy and voice exactly what it is we think, for good or bad. For that (and the free porn), it should be appreciated rather than vilified.
Julian, Twickenham, UK
I was looking for advice on man boobs, how did I end up here?
Anthony, London,
Well said David, and isn't it just indicative of the attitude of the Foreign Office towards the only democracy in the Middle East that they would recruit such filth into their ranks. Indeed I am sure it is policy to root out any person who displays the slightest tendency to (whisper now...) support for Israel. (There, I said it...and am proud to have done so...)
Jay, London,
Of course, this despicable anti-Semitism is nourished by the Craig Murrays of the world coupled with the anonymity of the Net.
Your fine article provides some insight into just how the darker periods of the twentieth century crept into the day to day.
Thank you for the glimpse of this stomach-turning, gutless individual.
Keep up the good work.
David MacKinnon, Amstelveen 1181 PB, Netherlands
Oprah is now concerned about obamas muslim ties. The black communtinty in the Us is turning their back on him. Once again Oprah jumped before looking. Just like today she is in town preaching about the martin luther king party
patjeanes, Memphis tn, usa
Excellent article Mr. Aronovitch. Its nice to see there are still some skilled writers around
Ray Meenan, Tokyo, Japan
Ron Paul wins all of the online polls, without any orchestrated "click in" campaigns. He has hundreds of thousands of self-organizing supporters who search the web daily for stories about him. He has more volunteers by far, and has been raising more money in recent months than any other Republican candidate.
There's nothing "extreme" about him -- he expects the government to follow its own rules per the Constitution, a very reasonable position. He is the only candidate in either party on the majority side of all 4 of the biggest issues -- against the Iraq war, for smaller government, against illegal immigration, and for civil liberties.
He placed second in Nevada with 14% of the vote, and fifth in Iowa with 10% of the vote -- both very respectable showings.
Craig, Irvine, California