The gift of knowledge is not just attributable to the advantageous possession of those masses of archives we thrive by intellectually, but is also doubly significant as it is supplementary to our constant human inquisition, our visceral need to know, like the imperative push given to the senses of a predator in a life-determining chase for consumption of its prey - here, in our natural environment(s), we are all predators, and we are all hungry. But for what exactly are we hungry for? Well, as the meat off the bones of a slain rabbit nourishes the triumphant vixen, so too does the naked fact off the backbone of current affairs provide sustenance for the throngs of salivating reporters, frenetically eager to gorge themselves silly on the lavish factual meat that is transposed into various savoury sources for the public to absorb secondarily.
Simply put, it's a concrete jungle out there, a jungle contained within the original, dynamic prism of affairs that it collects and collates from, thus creating a systemic spectrum of fact and fiction. The spectrum itself is a labyrinthine matrix of possibilities. Along this spectrum there are hypothetical fields that interest different people, and for journalists, or vixens, it is on these fields which they feed and subsequently provide factual nourishment for their cubs, otherwise known as the public recipients.
Now, the prism itself is untameable, we are all part of that wild prism of current affairs and are, in fact, incorporated into its daily functions. Then we have our spectrum and the separate fields divided along it. The majority of us, who act as vixens, respect each other's fields of interest and gather the necessary facts to feed our awaiting recipients, the cubs (the recipients can be ourselves, for when this gathering is for independent purposes; but in the case of journalism we are gathering for others, as well as ourselves). But these fields can be tampered with. The act of polluting these fields with obstructions to the freedom of expression is not uncommon, and is often perpetrated through a medium of protection intended to govern the order of the spectrum. These laws that bind us together within our concrete jungle, also inhibit us on many occasions from knowing the exact facts that we aim to absorb.
This is, of course, an analogy of what can occur within the system of government. The quality of information that circulates in society is susceptible to a number of internal influences, which don't always have to be influential in the correct sense. Examples can be found in various nooks and crannies across the 'political spectrum', but this can also filter out into other fields of information. One recent, compelling case of information being retained from the public and Parliament, through laws designed to uphold constitutional values, is the Trafigura-born super-injunction, advocated by Carter-Ruck. This case of 'invisible' gagging reflects a potential serial problem of non-existent information existing in complete, injunction-supported secrecy, which is where the analogy of the prism and its concrete jungle spectrum helps to convey how this affects the rest of us.
With factual meat from the prism going into the spectrum's separate fields and being surveyed and then gathered by those who are interested, but for personal, private reasons, our hunting vixens suddenly find it very hard, sometimes impossible to gather the facts to feed their cubs. The laws that should protect the spectrum's fields and its vixens are reversed in purpose by rogue gatherers of this information and turned against those who intend to carry it back to the den raw and accurate, not cooked-up and half-eaten - it can even be ingested by the rogues and their misused laws to be kept hidden from the hungry cubs. This clandestine behaviour is exactly what Carter-Ruck libel lawyer firm, in cahoots with prickly Trafigura, has been promoting since last September, when the first super-injunction was requested in court. To my limited knowledge, I would call this a flagrant slap in the face for journalists everywhere, and the public, who are being left in the dust about matters that clearly are of concern to them. But this is by no means a one-sided fight.
The real justice, when not delivered in court by a judge, can come from other, less restrained donors, also known as freedom fighters (freedom of expression, that is). We can see this provision of the much needed facts in effect, courtesy of the traditional investigative journalists and, manifested in the modern age, enthusiastic online sleuths, who, combined, create wondrous stockpiles of unadulterated fact for us to feed off, like Wikileaks.com.
The efforts made by these courageous people against the polluters of good journalism are highly commendable, not to mention conducive to a great time in revealing to yourself a range of things you never thought you'd know about.
And with that we come back to the all-important knowing; the insatiable, instinctive driving force behind the bulging snouts of the bloodhounds who tear down a scent trail in the hunt for that much yearned-for factual meat. This information is not just for thriving, it's for surviving as well. It's what keeps us alive in a world dominated by locked doors and dark paths; it's our lock pick, our torch. We come prepared in the search of fact; as journalists we're not unarmed, as we carry our defences: justification, comment and qualified privilege. Those with a nose for news don't back down till they're put down (I'm overstating here, but it looks better if you put up a fight before running scared with your tail between your legs).
Whereas I have employed a dog, or bloodhound as my metaphor for the fact hunt, John Locke uses his hawk image to envision the "pursuit", which "makes a great part of the pleasure" - by this I assume, although this is his empiricism speaking, that the bloodhounds find such a hunt fun. And why the hell not? Good on them. I hope to Holy Mary they keep at it and continue to unmask the rogues that cloud the system's facts with their smoke screen.
Let the mother f***ing hunt begin!
Now, the prism itself is untameable, we are all part of that wild prism of current affairs and are, in fact, incorporated into its daily functions. Then we have our spectrum and the separate fields divided along it. The majority of us, who act as vixens, respect each other's fields of interest and gather the necessary facts to feed our awaiting recipients, the cubs (the recipients can be ourselves, for when this gathering is for independent purposes; but in the case of journalism we are gathering for others, as well as ourselves). But these fields can be tampered with. The act of polluting these fields with obstructions to the freedom of expression is not uncommon, and is often perpetrated through a medium of protection intended to govern the order of the spectrum. These laws that bind us together within our concrete jungle, also inhibit us on many occasions from knowing the exact facts that we aim to absorb.
This is, of course, an analogy of what can occur within the system of government. The quality of information that circulates in society is susceptible to a number of internal influences, which don't always have to be influential in the correct sense. Examples can be found in various nooks and crannies across the 'political spectrum', but this can also filter out into other fields of information. One recent, compelling case of information being retained from the public and Parliament, through laws designed to uphold constitutional values, is the Trafigura-born super-injunction, advocated by Carter-Ruck. This case of 'invisible' gagging reflects a potential serial problem of non-existent information existing in complete, injunction-supported secrecy, which is where the analogy of the prism and its concrete jungle spectrum helps to convey how this affects the rest of us.
With factual meat from the prism going into the spectrum's separate fields and being surveyed and then gathered by those who are interested, but for personal, private reasons, our hunting vixens suddenly find it very hard, sometimes impossible to gather the facts to feed their cubs. The laws that should protect the spectrum's fields and its vixens are reversed in purpose by rogue gatherers of this information and turned against those who intend to carry it back to the den raw and accurate, not cooked-up and half-eaten - it can even be ingested by the rogues and their misused laws to be kept hidden from the hungry cubs. This clandestine behaviour is exactly what Carter-Ruck libel lawyer firm, in cahoots with prickly Trafigura, has been promoting since last September, when the first super-injunction was requested in court. To my limited knowledge, I would call this a flagrant slap in the face for journalists everywhere, and the public, who are being left in the dust about matters that clearly are of concern to them. But this is by no means a one-sided fight.
The real justice, when not delivered in court by a judge, can come from other, less restrained donors, also known as freedom fighters (freedom of expression, that is). We can see this provision of the much needed facts in effect, courtesy of the traditional investigative journalists and, manifested in the modern age, enthusiastic online sleuths, who, combined, create wondrous stockpiles of unadulterated fact for us to feed off, like Wikileaks.com.
The efforts made by these courageous people against the polluters of good journalism are highly commendable, not to mention conducive to a great time in revealing to yourself a range of things you never thought you'd know about.
And with that we come back to the all-important knowing; the insatiable, instinctive driving force behind the bulging snouts of the bloodhounds who tear down a scent trail in the hunt for that much yearned-for factual meat. This information is not just for thriving, it's for surviving as well. It's what keeps us alive in a world dominated by locked doors and dark paths; it's our lock pick, our torch. We come prepared in the search of fact; as journalists we're not unarmed, as we carry our defences: justification, comment and qualified privilege. Those with a nose for news don't back down till they're put down (I'm overstating here, but it looks better if you put up a fight before running scared with your tail between your legs).
Whereas I have employed a dog, or bloodhound as my metaphor for the fact hunt, John Locke uses his hawk image to envision the "pursuit", which "makes a great part of the pleasure" - by this I assume, although this is his empiricism speaking, that the bloodhounds find such a hunt fun. And why the hell not? Good on them. I hope to Holy Mary they keep at it and continue to unmask the rogues that cloud the system's facts with their smoke screen.
Let the mother f***ing hunt begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment