David Bennett

Newspapers Opinion and Fact

We often hear a complaint that newspapers are forgetting their role of delivering the facts and instead are intent on forming public opinion. They are accused of relaying only what fits the newspaper’s own ideology or direction or interest.

So, the argument runs, a newspaper should separate fact from opinion and give out the facts and then be explicit where it wants to give an opinion. This raises the question of whether it should give an opinion at all, to which the answer would be – and why not? After all those who run the newspaper are people as well and they have opinions.

The flaw in the argument of all of this is that there are no such things as facts. Of course there are facts but when newspapers report facts those facts are filtered through the collection of attitudes, desires, beliefs etc. that form and inform the minds of the people who work in and run the newspaper.

And therefore nobody on the newspaper can actually see the facts.

It takes huge insight to be able to see the facts. The context, the understanding of man, the history of mankind – a man must know all of these clearly because he can state the facts. More than that, it takes huge insight to be able to draw back and not go along some well-trodden road originally walked by one of the greater or smaller thinkers. To do that would be to simply regurgitate and parrot an opinion that is not the journalist’s own, rather than simply looking, seeing, and analysing.

It is basic. We do not have consensus on the nature of reality. Where is the consensus between the religious and the secular? Where is the consensus between those who hold that life is predictable and those who think that outside of a small field of predictability there is an ocean of chance? Faced with this we can say that people do not all occupy the same interior universe. What chance then their agreement on facts?

So we task newspapers with an impossible job. And this is not to say that a newspaper should simply decide wholesale that it’s going to ignore a pursuit of fact and just tailor everything and everything in its message to the opinion that wants to put over in order to sway public opinion. That is a complete abandonment of its task. But recognising that it is not possible for a person to see the facts without them being slanted by their own opinion is to ignore reality.

Brushes With The Truth

This is the first part of a longer post (A Million People) copied here.

How not to mix things up in a world full of casual brushes with the truth – uncaring as to what is real and what is not. In principle it has always been the same for at least some of the population. Now, however, we have reached critical mass.

Each uncaring and unthinking person has access to weapons of war. A tweet ricochets off another tweet and spins off into another social media platform. Like a pinball machine full of pinballs, the machine gets hot and melts down. 

Anger, frustration, good old-fashioned annoyance – they have nowhere they want to go except deeper into the furnace.

And the furnace spits them out. It doesn’t need them except as examples of persons. It doesn’t care about them except for whatever trace they leave behind in the the social weave. 

If they all disappeared tomorrow, their loss would be calculated in loss of engagement, followers, likes, and shares.

Iran Strike

I’ve been thinking about the interception of the drones and missiles from Iran. What would have happened or might have happened if America, Britain, France had not stepped in? What might have happened if the Jordanians had not allowed the use of their airspace? Then what might the result have been?

And I’m trying to picture it from the point of view of the Iranians who must have thought that a good number of their drones and missiles would get through. Perhaps they did not expect that the Americans and the French and the British and the Jordanians would all coordinate efforts to stop the rockets and missiles and drones.

And so the question might be what might have led them to think that the Americans, the British and the French would not have it all coordinated and worked out and immediately do what was needed?

And it might be we can link it back to the killing in the aid truck of the food aid workers by Israel in error.

And President Biden’s response, which went from criticism to threat.

My feeling is that President Biden is a politician, by which I mean that he understands people.

He understands when he can say something and then simply jettison it in the face of something else later on.

He understands people and he understands how to give out messages.

I don’t think in all the time of his presidency he’s ever put a foot wrong in terms of giving out messages.

So I wonder whether Iran simply read America wrong.

That is, they assumed that he, President Biden, would be so annoyed with Israel that he, the United States, would not come to Israel’s aid and that therefore Britain and France would not and that therefore Jordan would not. And that that was the miscalculation by the Iranians.

There is a counter-argument that the intention of the Iranians was to draw out the truth of the affiliations of the Americans, British, and French – and perhaps even more specifically of the Jordanians. Unless the ordnance that was directed at Israel is small potatoes for Iran, then it was an expensive gambit.

I can’t see it as a gambit so far as the USA, Britain, or France are concerned. If anything, the news seems to be that the moral outrage of anti Israel protesters is wearing thin with a lot of people. But Jordan – that may be a weak point, although whether the whole of Iran’s gambit turned on this? Maybe.

Napoleon: Film Review

I would love to have been a fly on the wall for this one. Joaquin Phoenix effectively played the Joker part again in frozen stillness, only coming alive when he was playing the tactician of battles or rushing into the fray wild eyed and mad like Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby as Josephine has zero chemistry and she looked permanently surprised.

How did Ridley Scott not see that they were not a good match for the screen? How could he have portrayed them as such broken cardboard figures? Was he intending to show what a mismatched sham their relationship was? Is Napoleon intended as a cautionary tale? Maybe, but it wasn’t woven like that.

To the point, and the point at which the film and I properly parted company was when Napoleon is in Egypt on campaign (as you do) and is told that his Josephine has a lover. He returns home and is accused of deserting his campaign. He, seemingly outraged, counter-accuses his accusers of deserting the governance of France. In a stand-off he runs off, gathers troops (who are of course loyal to him) and fights back and turns the tables.

When his accusers in the Parliament corner him, he transitions from powerful to ‘oops’ in flash, and he reminded me of the Joker again – same mannerisms.

Leaving that to one side, the plot describes how if Josephine had not had a lover then Napoleon would not have returned from Egypt and the consuls could have continued to merrily run France into the ground.

It may have been so as historical fact, but as a presentation of storytelling it was weak.

So, the plot: Napoleon takes over France under the guise of ending the Terror and has lots of battles that meld into one. He bites off more than he chan chew when the Russians have the temerity to burn Moscow to deny the city to the French and to save the Russian army. And to cap it all they refuse to come to peace terms despite Napoleon waiting weeks for the surrender.

By then the Russian winter is approaching and at that point Napoleon goes north to St Petersburg, against the advice of his generals. That will be his undoing in Russia and when he returns to France.

The Russians beat the French in the battles of Tarutino and Maloyaroslavets, but neither is mentioned. We see that the winter forces him to retreat in defeat, but we see nothing of that horror.

Half of Napoleon’s army died in that retreat and we know the details of the frozen bodies on the road because it is all in the contemporary account, The Memoirs of Sergeant Burgoyne.

It is important to know because the survivors who retreated with Napoleon supported him again after the exile on Elba. Why was that? Was he a populist whom they preferred to the alternative? None of that is explained. And it should have been because it is important in understanding France of the period. This Boy’s Own version doesn’t give us an explanation.

Napoleon is exiled because of his defeat in Russia, so much is fact.

When he sails from Elba after less than a year in exile, his motley band of followers march with him. They meet the opposing forces and in one quick speech those opposing him change sides and join him. Just like that. And they march on Paris. Again – it might have been like that historically, but the way it was presented was a Monty Python version.

Then comes Waterloo.

I held my breath fearing that Rupert Everett as Wellington would not be able to hold a serious glance – but he did and he was great.

I came away thinking that so much money and time was spent on the reconstruction of the battles that there was no time to tell the story properly.

We hear Napoleon say that he wants to bring about universal peace. He fought everyone to bring that about. But countries changed sides. Allies became enemies and vice versa. Kings and emperors admired him, forged alliances with him and then betrayed him and defeated him.

Perhaps the message of the film was in there.

At the end of the film there was a tally of the dead:

He led 61 battles in his military career…
TOULON 6,000 dead
MARENGO 12,000 dead
AUSTERLITZ 16,500 dead
BORODINO 71,000 dead
WATERLOO 47,000 dead (one day)
INVASION OF RUSSIA 460,000 dead
1793-1815: over 3,000,000 dead

So what do we learn? That Napoleon was successful for a while but in the end he bit off more than he could chew. And in pursuit of his dream of peace under his banner he brought about the death of millions. Ah, we have been here before and again since then. When will we learn?