“Instead, the way people see politics is intimately tied to the way they see themselves.” - THIS!
Grace, your substack is SO damn refreshing! Thank you!
I see this on the doorstep, and can also affirm that posting literature and sharing media does little to change minds. Dialogue can, and that is a distinctly human act in a world of BS hyped techno-fanatasism.
This is why I believe the Green Party's approach of prioritising campaigning on the doorstep is the correct one - especially given the media is so biased against them.
Wasn’t that one of the reasons Corbyn was so much closer to winning the 2017 election than anyone expected - lots of inspired people campaigning locally including on doorsteps? It’s rather daunting for those of us who aren’t articulate though.
Yes, that did make a big difference - and one of the reasons why Labour is losing so many by-elections is that their remaining activists etc. are not keen on trying to defend things like benefits cuts from understandably irate voters.
A really interesting take Grace. As a mid septuagenarian, life long unionist, and erstwhile Labour voter I have become extremely cynical about whether an individual has any real agency to shape our existences other than which we stoically gather for ourselves. Whether it be via education, travel, union membership or social milieu it has been hard graft in the face of a political system determined to chain us down. For over 50 years I have protested injustice, marched, withdrawn my labour, written, submitted objections via our select committee procedures, joined political parties and affiliations, yet in real terms have influenced only myself. Cementing over time a more trenchant view of truth about the world and my place within it. I have come to understand that the only real change possible lies in each of us by becoming the change we want to see, corny maybe, but it’s a truth that seems to work for me. I have been fortunate enough to have worked in education for my adult career which afforded me an opportunity to place alternative narratives for students that their familial backgrounds may never have considered as possible options. Whether those narratives were welcome I’m not sure I can say, other than the reality that I’ve had a lot of ex students say they wished they’d taken my advice, and none so far that have indicated they wish they hadn’t. I’m heartened each time I read or listen to your commentary because you shine a light of hope for the development of an alternate narrative. One where everyone can be allowed to live with dignity and be able to fully participate in their societies. Keep up your good work
I think the only benefit really to going on MSM debate shows is to make your name and media outlet known to people who are just getting into socialist ideas. But then I suppose at this point, independent left wing media is big enough to do that without relying on these kind of debate appearances.
In terms of actual debates on Politics Live, Question Time or whatever, actually being worthwhile; I agree with you. It’s basically pointless.
To underscore that point, I never watch television, (I think the last broadcast I watched was the Kennedy Assassination), and I wasn’t aware of Grace Blakeley until this morning.
And yet here we are. Media is adapting to the unaligned instinct of free(er) thinking people through platforms that didn’t exist a few years ago, and we need to make sure they stay both independent and viable. It’s a unique opportunity for change.
I don’t completely agree. I was brought up reading my dad’s Sun, obviously starting from the back pages & as brainwashed as the best of them. I think it’s the way you answer, use humour don’t get outraged, concede a little & win the big points & you might be surprised how you change people’s minds. I started watching these & then with the power of YouTube you can have a look & see a bit more of the messages.
I remember hearing Any Question on the radio way back in the 60s. I must have been 13/14. Sometimes I was horrified by people on the panel and by the response of the audience. The only one that made sense to me was Ian Mikardo. There was one particular time when the audience were braying even more vilely than usual and he vigorously said, “That is a terrorist response!” He shocked the audience into silence and he shocked me. I can’t quite remember what the subject matter was, but that has stuck with me.
That man’s appearances on Any Questions definitely shaped my political ideology, but I suppose I was young and impressionable then.
I agree with Grace’s statement that frequently appearing on TV is a waste of time.And often you unconsciously fall into trap they deliberately set beforehand.However, refusing to join in the TV interview ever will make one’s ideas less powerful and less influential.Maybe the recommended way is to take a balanced approach——allocate appropriate time to theoretical reading,writing and reflection,social activism and media appearance,but do not let any single one of them occupy too much of your precious time.
It's still quite meaningful to appear on TV or other public media,because when you appear on media introducing your progressive views to the general public,you are actually launching the intellectual revolution against the conservative or neoliberal media,meanwhile you are also trying to create the real public sphere.In the whole life of Noam Chomsky,especially in his later life when he is too old to write,the main way for him to address the public issues and to connect with the general public is to receive long media interviews to inform the public of the important ideas in his mind.And so does Jeffrey Sachs.This is a unique way of combatting.This is to win over the cultural hegemony in the Gramscian sense,since if you don’t grasp some important opportunity to appear on media,then other entertainment celebrities,media moguls and CEOs of powerful corporations will dominate the TV to brainwash the ordinary people.What’s more,some poor people can’t afford buying books or newspapers to read,so the main way for them to get the latest information is to turn on the TV to watch those TV programs. We can’t let our media be infiltrated with big money.
Victor Pickard https://www.asc.upenn.edu/people/faculty/victor-pickard-phd , the notable and insightful political economist of communication from Penn,once he recalled his experience of using the word“capitalism” when joining a TV program,then the host tried to get him out of the studio immediately.As a result,we can obviously see that the media,especially the corporate media, has its own vested interest,ideological preferences,political correctness,internal censorship.The media industry is also a main part of the established institutions and the propaganda machine of the ruling class,it is every now and then used as the servile mouthpiece and megaphone for the rich and powerful billionaire class.However,it is also a contested field where the dissenting voice against the ruling neoliberal ideology may possibly be vented.
Instead of burying oneself in the ivory towers,thinkers should go out,participate in some social activism and receive certain amount of high-quality interviews.Amplifying one’s voice to get rid of the quagmire of isolation and marginalization by the corporate media is an indispensable way to let yourself be known to the wider public,especially for those who have no access to your books or any other writings,Grace.
I absolutely agree—there’s certainly a much greater need for action than words. Unfortunately, over the years, we’ve seen how the infamous 'TINA' (There Is No Alternative) from Thatcher’s era has managed to seep into the minds of ordinary people, with the result that they don’t even consider an alternative to this predatory economic system, let alone take action against it.
So, the only solution—though far from simple—is exactly that: finding alternative actions together that lead to tangible results. Only in this way can people be motivated to continue the fight and others be inspired to join it.
Moreover, as for TV debates, it’s been many years since real political debates existed. Instead, they’re just a way to reinforce mainstream discourse and, when possible, discredit those who oppose it, with no real interest in genuine discussion
I think media "debates" don't change people's minds because they know (though likely not clearly and consciously) that they aren't real, good-faith debates about reality.
They're largely an empty exchange of talking points in aid of elite interests, not honest, open discussions of what actually matters to people. And w.hen they are genuine debates, that's because the people involved are not in or close to power, so they don't see the discussion translate into actually change.
If people regularly saw informed, caring powerful people debate important issues relevant to their lives, and saw that turn into policy and be implemented - then there would be huge interest and engagement. But we're so used to unconsciously discounting most of what the media say, because we know it doesn't represent reality. It's essentially economic propaganda.
I work in public transport and just got back from a training course which included a former BBC journalist. His message to us was really clear: go and be those “informed, caring people” explaining clearly what we’re doing and why it’s needed and how we are doing our absolute best to look after our local communities - especially when there’s major works or disruption.
"I’ve already learned more through these conversations than I have debating the country’s brightest minds."
So here's a little mind-game I love to play.
- Take any of the powerful and/or wealthy/successful people whom we hang onto every word from, and just imagine that they are a random "nobody" you have met on a train. How many of them would you rate as having massively more hubris than well-exercised intellect, and thus find yourself quietly praying that they got off at the next station?
And I absolutely applaud you for giving up the debating circle; it's purely sadistic theatre, watching people's ego's squirm, watching people trying to trip each other's fight-or-flight mechanism to stultify their articulation. The nature of arguments here is to win rather than actually be correct; let alone be honest or - God forbid - even actually learn anything from each other
Dialectics it is not.
Regarding organising; as distinct from proselyting in some comfortable echo-chamber; I can never divorce that concept from the work of catalysing radically democratic social structures. The one reason why I enjoy discussions with self-identifying anarchists is that they have already nominally commenced from a premise that societal structure and ideology are indivisible. And you don't have to be an anarchist to realise that the most worthy thing that the political class can do is to redistribute power among we-the-eight-plus-billion. Politicians, business leaders, military heads; all spend their lives convening and organising to maintain or further their power, and thus so must we if we are not to be entirely consigned to this stupefying observer/consumer existence. Radical ideas are formed by Praxis and there's not an App for that.
Finally: did Simon Marks of LBC in closing (1:01.20) accredit you with writing a book called "Venture Capitalism"😃? I think that alone makes your case for abdicating that circus!
Okay: rant over; loving your blog and sending the usual warmest solidarity tidings! 😃🏴☠️
Those millions of conversations that happen in the home, on the commute, in the streets, in the factories... are like the bubbles in a saucepan and we - nor the powerful few - never quite know when the lid is going to suddenly fly off! Just think how many major popular upheavals - and victories - seemed unexpected? But they were not quite so spontaneous: for revolution is a long game, even over generations, which happens one conversation at a time!
I'm not sure I believe this. I've been saying "No one really believes that Iran has WMD or is a threat--this is about US/Israel hegemony, and knocking down the only Middle Eastern country whose leaders have not been co-opted" so I was a little surprised to see the "Iran is a rogue nation" BS, and "we have to build our defenses by spending more on weapons"...but they get away with this because most people see these notions reinforced over and over, and rarely see viewpoints like yours. So I think your appearance on that show was indeed valuable. To say IRAN is comparable to Nazi Germany when Israel is the one clearly following the Nazi playbook is pretty heavy gaslighting--you didn't need many sentences to point that out. Noam Chomsky once said that in the rare case he is allowed on "mainstream" TV, he can't compete, because the opposition can make an absurd, easily disproven statement and be understood because the groundwork is so extensively laid, while if he makes a provable statement like "The CIA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world" he would need 20 minutes to lay the groundwork, to tell people things they had not heard in our so-called free press. Your statements reinforced what people have seen with their own eyes but rarely seen acknowledged, thus may have extra impact.
And we're told that to give people scientific facts about climate change, for example, results in their doubling down on denialism. But I suspect that isn't really true--ask them shortly afterward and you will get the defensive response, but I think we're all nudged slightly in the direction of cogent arguments we hear. It takes many nudges to change a mind, though. And perhaps with war issues as well as climate, the emotional aspect is critical--if you can show people clearly that there is something we can do to avert climate change, or war, they will be more receptive.
Yeah, don't talk to those men. The entire point, and Ash Sarkar talks on this too, is to dismiss the left. We need you and Ash and Novara Media talking directly to us, debating and discussing in order to move us and to help us put into words all the stuff we know is wrong but cannot articulate.
“Instead, the way people see politics is intimately tied to the way they see themselves.” - THIS!
Grace, your substack is SO damn refreshing! Thank you!
I see this on the doorstep, and can also affirm that posting literature and sharing media does little to change minds. Dialogue can, and that is a distinctly human act in a world of BS hyped techno-fanatasism.
Thanks Garry! Glad it resonates
This is why I believe the Green Party's approach of prioritising campaigning on the doorstep is the correct one - especially given the media is so biased against them.
https://colinboyle.substack.com/p/what-the-greens-think-they-are-doing?r=2d3glm
Absolutely!
Wasn’t that one of the reasons Corbyn was so much closer to winning the 2017 election than anyone expected - lots of inspired people campaigning locally including on doorsteps? It’s rather daunting for those of us who aren’t articulate though.
Yes, that did make a big difference - and one of the reasons why Labour is losing so many by-elections is that their remaining activists etc. are not keen on trying to defend things like benefits cuts from understandably irate voters.
A really interesting take Grace. As a mid septuagenarian, life long unionist, and erstwhile Labour voter I have become extremely cynical about whether an individual has any real agency to shape our existences other than which we stoically gather for ourselves. Whether it be via education, travel, union membership or social milieu it has been hard graft in the face of a political system determined to chain us down. For over 50 years I have protested injustice, marched, withdrawn my labour, written, submitted objections via our select committee procedures, joined political parties and affiliations, yet in real terms have influenced only myself. Cementing over time a more trenchant view of truth about the world and my place within it. I have come to understand that the only real change possible lies in each of us by becoming the change we want to see, corny maybe, but it’s a truth that seems to work for me. I have been fortunate enough to have worked in education for my adult career which afforded me an opportunity to place alternative narratives for students that their familial backgrounds may never have considered as possible options. Whether those narratives were welcome I’m not sure I can say, other than the reality that I’ve had a lot of ex students say they wished they’d taken my advice, and none so far that have indicated they wish they hadn’t. I’m heartened each time I read or listen to your commentary because you shine a light of hope for the development of an alternate narrative. One where everyone can be allowed to live with dignity and be able to fully participate in their societies. Keep up your good work
I think the only benefit really to going on MSM debate shows is to make your name and media outlet known to people who are just getting into socialist ideas. But then I suppose at this point, independent left wing media is big enough to do that without relying on these kind of debate appearances.
In terms of actual debates on Politics Live, Question Time or whatever, actually being worthwhile; I agree with you. It’s basically pointless.
💯💯
To underscore that point, I never watch television, (I think the last broadcast I watched was the Kennedy Assassination), and I wasn’t aware of Grace Blakeley until this morning.
And yet here we are. Media is adapting to the unaligned instinct of free(er) thinking people through platforms that didn’t exist a few years ago, and we need to make sure they stay both independent and viable. It’s a unique opportunity for change.
Very excited about your new book!
Thanks!
I don’t completely agree. I was brought up reading my dad’s Sun, obviously starting from the back pages & as brainwashed as the best of them. I think it’s the way you answer, use humour don’t get outraged, concede a little & win the big points & you might be surprised how you change people’s minds. I started watching these & then with the power of YouTube you can have a look & see a bit more of the messages.
I’m not sure I’d have found my way without….. ✌🏻
I remember hearing Any Question on the radio way back in the 60s. I must have been 13/14. Sometimes I was horrified by people on the panel and by the response of the audience. The only one that made sense to me was Ian Mikardo. There was one particular time when the audience were braying even more vilely than usual and he vigorously said, “That is a terrorist response!” He shocked the audience into silence and he shocked me. I can’t quite remember what the subject matter was, but that has stuck with me.
That man’s appearances on Any Questions definitely shaped my political ideology, but I suppose I was young and impressionable then.
I agree with Grace’s statement that frequently appearing on TV is a waste of time.And often you unconsciously fall into trap they deliberately set beforehand.However, refusing to join in the TV interview ever will make one’s ideas less powerful and less influential.Maybe the recommended way is to take a balanced approach——allocate appropriate time to theoretical reading,writing and reflection,social activism and media appearance,but do not let any single one of them occupy too much of your precious time.
It's still quite meaningful to appear on TV or other public media,because when you appear on media introducing your progressive views to the general public,you are actually launching the intellectual revolution against the conservative or neoliberal media,meanwhile you are also trying to create the real public sphere.In the whole life of Noam Chomsky,especially in his later life when he is too old to write,the main way for him to address the public issues and to connect with the general public is to receive long media interviews to inform the public of the important ideas in his mind.And so does Jeffrey Sachs.This is a unique way of combatting.This is to win over the cultural hegemony in the Gramscian sense,since if you don’t grasp some important opportunity to appear on media,then other entertainment celebrities,media moguls and CEOs of powerful corporations will dominate the TV to brainwash the ordinary people.What’s more,some poor people can’t afford buying books or newspapers to read,so the main way for them to get the latest information is to turn on the TV to watch those TV programs. We can’t let our media be infiltrated with big money.
Victor Pickard https://www.asc.upenn.edu/people/faculty/victor-pickard-phd , the notable and insightful political economist of communication from Penn,once he recalled his experience of using the word“capitalism” when joining a TV program,then the host tried to get him out of the studio immediately.As a result,we can obviously see that the media,especially the corporate media, has its own vested interest,ideological preferences,political correctness,internal censorship.The media industry is also a main part of the established institutions and the propaganda machine of the ruling class,it is every now and then used as the servile mouthpiece and megaphone for the rich and powerful billionaire class.However,it is also a contested field where the dissenting voice against the ruling neoliberal ideology may possibly be vented.
Instead of burying oneself in the ivory towers,thinkers should go out,participate in some social activism and receive certain amount of high-quality interviews.Amplifying one’s voice to get rid of the quagmire of isolation and marginalization by the corporate media is an indispensable way to let yourself be known to the wider public,especially for those who have no access to your books or any other writings,Grace.
I’ve never voted in my life and I’m almost 50 but I would vote for you!
Haha vote green instead!
Refreshing, hopeful, motivating. Thanks Grace.
I absolutely agree—there’s certainly a much greater need for action than words. Unfortunately, over the years, we’ve seen how the infamous 'TINA' (There Is No Alternative) from Thatcher’s era has managed to seep into the minds of ordinary people, with the result that they don’t even consider an alternative to this predatory economic system, let alone take action against it.
So, the only solution—though far from simple—is exactly that: finding alternative actions together that lead to tangible results. Only in this way can people be motivated to continue the fight and others be inspired to join it.
Moreover, as for TV debates, it’s been many years since real political debates existed. Instead, they’re just a way to reinforce mainstream discourse and, when possible, discredit those who oppose it, with no real interest in genuine discussion
I think media "debates" don't change people's minds because they know (though likely not clearly and consciously) that they aren't real, good-faith debates about reality.
They're largely an empty exchange of talking points in aid of elite interests, not honest, open discussions of what actually matters to people. And w.hen they are genuine debates, that's because the people involved are not in or close to power, so they don't see the discussion translate into actually change.
If people regularly saw informed, caring powerful people debate important issues relevant to their lives, and saw that turn into policy and be implemented - then there would be huge interest and engagement. But we're so used to unconsciously discounting most of what the media say, because we know it doesn't represent reality. It's essentially economic propaganda.
I work in public transport and just got back from a training course which included a former BBC journalist. His message to us was really clear: go and be those “informed, caring people” explaining clearly what we’re doing and why it’s needed and how we are doing our absolute best to look after our local communities - especially when there’s major works or disruption.
"I’ve already learned more through these conversations than I have debating the country’s brightest minds."
So here's a little mind-game I love to play.
- Take any of the powerful and/or wealthy/successful people whom we hang onto every word from, and just imagine that they are a random "nobody" you have met on a train. How many of them would you rate as having massively more hubris than well-exercised intellect, and thus find yourself quietly praying that they got off at the next station?
And I absolutely applaud you for giving up the debating circle; it's purely sadistic theatre, watching people's ego's squirm, watching people trying to trip each other's fight-or-flight mechanism to stultify their articulation. The nature of arguments here is to win rather than actually be correct; let alone be honest or - God forbid - even actually learn anything from each other
Dialectics it is not.
Regarding organising; as distinct from proselyting in some comfortable echo-chamber; I can never divorce that concept from the work of catalysing radically democratic social structures. The one reason why I enjoy discussions with self-identifying anarchists is that they have already nominally commenced from a premise that societal structure and ideology are indivisible. And you don't have to be an anarchist to realise that the most worthy thing that the political class can do is to redistribute power among we-the-eight-plus-billion. Politicians, business leaders, military heads; all spend their lives convening and organising to maintain or further their power, and thus so must we if we are not to be entirely consigned to this stupefying observer/consumer existence. Radical ideas are formed by Praxis and there's not an App for that.
Finally: did Simon Marks of LBC in closing (1:01.20) accredit you with writing a book called "Venture Capitalism"😃? I think that alone makes your case for abdicating that circus!
Okay: rant over; loving your blog and sending the usual warmest solidarity tidings! 😃🏴☠️
But what changed minds before people began to organise around their beliefs? A single debate rarely shifts opinion; it’s repetition that does.
That’s how we’ve all arrived at the conclusions we hold today, and how they’ll continue to evolve as exposure continues.
Everyone’s thinking has been shaped by long-running conversations, whether through speech, literature, or other forms of transmission.
Spot on, Jowan! 😃
Those millions of conversations that happen in the home, on the commute, in the streets, in the factories... are like the bubbles in a saucepan and we - nor the powerful few - never quite know when the lid is going to suddenly fly off! Just think how many major popular upheavals - and victories - seemed unexpected? But they were not quite so spontaneous: for revolution is a long game, even over generations, which happens one conversation at a time!
Warmest solidarity wishes to you! 😃
I'm not sure I believe this. I've been saying "No one really believes that Iran has WMD or is a threat--this is about US/Israel hegemony, and knocking down the only Middle Eastern country whose leaders have not been co-opted" so I was a little surprised to see the "Iran is a rogue nation" BS, and "we have to build our defenses by spending more on weapons"...but they get away with this because most people see these notions reinforced over and over, and rarely see viewpoints like yours. So I think your appearance on that show was indeed valuable. To say IRAN is comparable to Nazi Germany when Israel is the one clearly following the Nazi playbook is pretty heavy gaslighting--you didn't need many sentences to point that out. Noam Chomsky once said that in the rare case he is allowed on "mainstream" TV, he can't compete, because the opposition can make an absurd, easily disproven statement and be understood because the groundwork is so extensively laid, while if he makes a provable statement like "The CIA is the biggest terrorist organization in the world" he would need 20 minutes to lay the groundwork, to tell people things they had not heard in our so-called free press. Your statements reinforced what people have seen with their own eyes but rarely seen acknowledged, thus may have extra impact.
And we're told that to give people scientific facts about climate change, for example, results in their doubling down on denialism. But I suspect that isn't really true--ask them shortly afterward and you will get the defensive response, but I think we're all nudged slightly in the direction of cogent arguments we hear. It takes many nudges to change a mind, though. And perhaps with war issues as well as climate, the emotional aspect is critical--if you can show people clearly that there is something we can do to avert climate change, or war, they will be more receptive.
Yeah, don't talk to those men. The entire point, and Ash Sarkar talks on this too, is to dismiss the left. We need you and Ash and Novara Media talking directly to us, debating and discussing in order to move us and to help us put into words all the stuff we know is wrong but cannot articulate.
Yes - screaming into the void is what we have done for decades.
Tell action can work sometimes but example it doesn’t even if millions march in protest - the Iraq war prior to invasion.
They don’t listen.