Conspiracies and the JEP

Where people do set out to have conspiracies, they don't ever end up like they're supposed to. History is a series of unintended consequences resulting from confused actions, some of which are committed by people who may think they're taking part in a conspiracy, but it never works out the way they intended. - Adam Curtis

I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories.

In "Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition", the philosopher Karl Popper considers what he called "conspiracy theory of society". His argument is that while ancient pagans, for example, attributed the vagaries of social life to the gods, people today (often discarding theism of any kind) attempt to do the same thing, only instead of attributing things to various gods, they blame powerful men or groups.

Popper states that conspiracies are bound to fail because of unexpected outcomes: "... one of the striking things about social life that nothing ever comes off exactly as intended. Things always turn out a little bit differently. We hardly ever produce in social life precisely the effect that we wish to produce, and we usually get things that we do not want into the bargain. Of course, we act with certain aims in mind; but apart from the question of these aims (which we may or may not really achieve) there are always certain unwanted consequences of our actions; and usually these unwanted consequences cannot be eliminated."

On the JEP Nick Palmer recently commented about "people who complain about the JEP not publishing letters" and how length is one major issues - "it's not an establishment censorship plot". Quite right. I hope he doesn't attribute dark motives about conspiracy theories to me. I think in fact that the list of cock-ups by the States mitigates against conspiracy theories and in favour of what Adam Curtis called "unintended consequences resulting from confused actions"

Part of this must stem from the extremely an inconsistent editorial policy - sometimes they publish long letters ( - sometimes from Stuart Syvret, so much for conspiracies! - ) and usually put details about letter lengths not being longer than so many words alongside this, which is about as good an example of mixed messages as they can make.

If they put "Letters should not be more than 400 words, but we may print them nevertheless as evidenced by the letter below depending on the editor's decision" it would be more accurate; instead it just makes it look like sloppy sub-editing.

Here are some recent letters with word count, subject and author.

(Data Protection Note: These are all from the JEP website, and therefore in the public domain worldwide)

161 Against EU domination R McCredie
231 For the Bailiff, Charles Thacker
321 On The No Confidence Motion, Ben Shenton
341 On Population John Le Maistre
342 On the Incinerator,Nick Palmer
348, On the Council of Ministers, Ken Sheehan
368 On The Waterfront, Andrew Arthur
458 On The Waterfont, Chris Whitworth
414 On Shona Pitman, Collette Crill
530 On the Bailiff, John de Carteret
551 On GST and Prices, Jim Hopley, Co-Op
664 On Electoral Reform, Elena Moran
1181 Reply to Dr Moran, Stuart Syvret

I think it can be seen from this that there is no evidence of conspiracy, but that any guidelines are often thrown to the wind. As I say, there may be good editorial reasons for this - the editor thinks the letter sustains that length for the reader or public interest, but they should really re-think their text on long letters, or they simply appear inconsistent and stupid.

In fact, rather than believe in conspiracy, I would see poor journalism at work, of the kind mentioned by Chesterton, when he wrote:

the modern editor regards himself far too much as a kind of original artist, who can select and suppress facts with the arbitrary ease of a poet or a caricaturist. He "makes up" the paper as man "makes up" a fairy tale, he considers his newspaper solely as a work of art, meant to give pleasure, not to give news. He puts in this one letter because he thinks it clever. He puts in these three or four letters because he thinks them silly. He suppresses this article because he thinks it wrong. He suppresses this other and more dangerous article because he thinks it right. The old idea that he is simply a mode of the expression of the public, an "organ" of opinion, seems to have entirely vanished from his mind. To-day the editor is not only the organ, but the man who plays on the organ.

That does not mean that I don't think there is not editorial slant.

Obviously the editor has his opinions, and is entitled to express them. Personally, I agree with G.K. Chesterton that the leader column should have a name on it, so that "writing anonymously ought to be the exception; writing a signed article ought to be the rule. And anonymity ought to be not only an exception, but an accidental exception; a man ought always to be ready to say what anonymous article he had written."

Chesterton also noted that:

there is another rule for making journalism honest on which I should like to insist absolutely. I should like it to be a fixed thing that the name of the proprietor as well as the editor should be printed upon every paper. If the paper is owned by shareholders, let there be a list of shareholders. If it is owned by one man, let that one man's name be printed on the paper, if possible in large red letters. Then, if there are any obvious interests being served, we shall know that they are being served

I don't believe in conspiracies, but with Chesterton, I think that a little transparency would help.


Books of the Post
Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper
All Things Considered, G.K. Chesterton