Widespread ...... Brown & stuff

I had unpublished this post, but have now republished but deleted the content and substituted this in order to get the original off Google cache. See David Ould and Adrian Monck for some of the background. Once the cache has disappeared, as according to this it should shortly, then I might delete this post as well. Or not.

(Update: In Andrew Brown's Church Times column today: 'The same day, the front page of The Times had been entirely taken up with a straightforward and perfectly true Ruth Gledhill exclusive about the Von Hugel Instritute's report on the place of Christianity in British public life.' Is it just me, or do I detect a perfectly-formed tongue-in-a-cheek in that sentence?)

(Footnote: Andrew Brown and I will be having lunch soon.)

Comments

[John Blake]

In common with many of Christopher Morgan’s friends, I was disappointed to read blog reports of an unnecessarily negative article being published in The Church Times, within the same edition as his obituary. I braced myself for the appearance of a hatchet-job on Chris’ life and career, but on reading Andrew Brown’s piece, it appears as a little more than a transparent attempt at a final, unanswerable swipe at a journalist colleague, doing justice to neither man.

Andrew Brown is fully entitled and well-placed to plot an objective path through Chris’ later years as a journalist and broadcaster. The author states within his thread response to varying criticisms, that Chris’ sad end and battle with depression ‘doesn't make him a better journalist, which is what I was considering in that piece.’ And, if after a careful inventory of Chris’ output, Andrew Brown is still of a mind that the sum of the parts of the career under spotlight adds up to not much at all, then he is within his rights to jot down his view.

It is clear, however, that many people, equally well-placed, have taken issue with such views as expressed by Brown, whether for lack of measure, balance or empathy, in what presumably will be his last published observations on Chris Morgan’s life. But still it remains his prerogative to hold and express such opinions.

What I found most objectionable about the Church Times column, which at the very least was a mean-spirited and I believe threadbare account of Chris Morgan’s overall professional contribution, was the way it meandered with motive outside of the brief Brown declares to have set himself.

An irritation that Chris retained a private life without a convenient viewing platform for Brown and that as the columnist’s lunch host he may not have had the financial means to meet the bill, are two seemingly vital issues that need parachuting into this last comment piece. But what is the relevance of either point when considering his journalistic contribution?

To indulge Brown’s latter point of Chris’ solvency, did the guest, who, as he also stated in his blog thread, doubted that Chris, ‘from his manner when he paid the bill, that he was telling the truth’, write out a cheque to Chris the next day to cover his share of the fun, or make immediate plans to underwrite a commensurate occasion to help lighten the load? I want to believe that one or the other came to pass, but I have my doubts.

No, it seems to me that Andrew Brown’s article was from a man wanting the last word on a number of subjects in relation to Chris and only some of them focused on his professional life. ‘A casualty of Fleet Street’ leaves a bad aftertaste, dissimilar, one hopes, to that left by the peach Bellinis that Brown so enjoyed with Chris Morgan a fact that, as any one who had the privilege to call Chris a friend would know, would have given him more pleasure than drinking one himself.

[Julie (Juliet Pain)]

Irene, no, I haven't been to Haifi - but how might this relate to my post?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I don't know if Andrew Brown was tongue in cheek or not, but the Gerald Butt article had a very misleading heading, implying that Jews are responsible for all the bad experiences currently undergone by Arabs in the region.

I don't blame hime for that, as it is not the writer who normally chooses the heading. I certainly didn't when I wrote my pieces for them.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

It is really nice to hear from a blogger who has actually visited Haifa, which has changed enormously since the Gulf War, but still retains its good community relations, whilst absorbing loads of Russian and Ethipian Jews.

Regarding the CT, it is not an either-or situation. It is true, as Stuart says, that there is huge racism against Muslims in inner city schools. I experienced this myself when teaching in the Greater Manchester area, which includes Rochdale, Oldham and Salford, all of them trouble spots, I'm afraid.

However, this is irrelevant to the CT, whose stance against Israel was such that it seeped into its every-day vocabulary about Jews as well.

As one of their more concerned journalists told me - this was out of pure ignorance, and they welcomed constructive criticisms and suggestions.

The good news is that today's edition of the CT has recommended a TV series about what it feels like to be Jewish in Britain today, starting next Wednesday on BBC 4 at 9.00 pm

And Andrew Brown has not criticized anyone this week, as far as I know.

[Stuart Hartill]

I went to Haifa many times between 1988-90 until the first scud missile brought an end to a pleasant friendship, so I take Dr Lancaster's point.
For those who haven't - it's a sobering experience to be on the beach and watch an F16 cross to a neighbouring country in seconds, and realise that equally quickly a small motorboat or missile could come the other way. I'm still critical of Israel but also understand the feeling of being hemmed in by potentially hostile forces.
What I would say is that sense of being under siege is also true for communities such as British Muslims. I started school in such a community in Bradford, and what is even wierder is that even as a white kid I was judged a 'Paki' by bigger white kids who came to pick on my Asian classmates as we fought our way home daily.
We tend to judge ideas in the abstract, and maybe more sense of the geographical as well the historical location of the speaker might be useful in considering ways out of modern, nominally religious, dilemmas.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

To Julie I would say, believe me I can write tidy e-mails.

To Mike I would say, I do agree that criticism of Israel is OK, but not outright lies and distortions.

Have either of you ever visited Haifa, by the way?

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

It is an acceptable position to be opposed to Zionism and the behaviour of Israel, Irene. Not one you agree with, but acceptable nevertheless.

I don't think that an approach which appears to resent any point of view that isn't utterly in favour of Zionist nationhood is very helpful, neither does it win any converts!

There are equally vociferous voices on the pro-Palestine side and I would say much the same to them.

[Julie (Juliet Pain)]

How awful yet entertaining it is to see on Andrew Brown's blog, Ruth Gledhill and Damian Thompson trying to convince us that there is some sort of journalistic equivalent of 'honour amongst thieves' in operation between them, which the terrible athiest Mr Brown has gone and shockingly transgressed. What twaddle - that they don't attack each other more often is probably less to do with 'honour' and more to do with fear of the other having the sharper barbs - neither appears to have the slightest qualm when it comes to laying into anyone else who takes their fancy, then.

Pity you deleted your blog article before I had read it, Ruth - I might have enjoyed putting it on my blog for my own entertainment. If anyone has a copy...(no - don't send it my way).

Regarding the editor of the Church Times - he DOES answer e.mails. It has been a very long time since I last sent one, but in my experience, he does reply, or otherwise gets someone to reply. Perhaps Irene could have a bash at writing tidier e.mails. :-)

Personally, and though I do not have a subscription to the Church Times at present, I enjoy Andrew Brown - he's quite the light in the darkness, as is anyone who can make me laugh.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear Ruth

As you know, I read the Church Times religiously mainly because of its long-standing anti-Israel stance and ignorance about Judaism. I was in fact asked to read the paper (and seven other Church papers) as part of the Jewish community's concern about the antisemitism which has seeped into the country, not least into the Anglican church, which is something you know a great deal about, as it is one of the reasons you started your blog, and a very good thing too!

In the past two or three years, a marked improvement is noticable in the Church Times' attitude to Judaism per se, but its problematic attitude to Israel has led to subtlety on their part.

Whereas its columnists, Giles Fraser and Paul Vallely, who used to go for Israel hammer and tongs, have tended to lay off that beleagured country in recent months, they have been replaced by Jewish voices whose a-contextual criticisms of the country (and as you know I've been living and travelling around it for the last year and a half) have to be read to be believed!! A good example is this week's article about a school for Jews and Arabs. The front page has headlines screaming: 'rewriting Jewish-Arab relations', even though I also taught in a school like this in Jaffa, where most of the teachers were Israeli Jews and Christian Arabs and a sizeable proportion of pupils Muslim Arabs. And we all got on famously.

Plus all the other walks of life in Israel: academia, medicine, social intercourse etc etc, where Israel is streets ahead of Britain in integrated Arab-Jewish existence. And in which Arabs are often the boss!

The Church Times is stubborn and won't budge on their anti-Israel prejudices. They just move them along a little. Distortions from the mouths of Jews sit better with them, it seems, than a more rounded picture which would express what it's like to be in constant fear of katyusha rockets and death threats from Muslim extremists living the same distance from you (or less) than Liverpool is from Manchester.

This is all by way of prelude to the obituary of Christopher Morgan by Andrew Brown. I must admit that I thought it harsh, but attempting to be fair in his own way. Maybe he even feels a bit guilty. Who knows?

However, what has concerned me in the past were his constant gibes against you. So much so that I wrote to him about my concerns and even received a response.

The problem with the Church Times is that it is highly influential, being read by all the major Bishops in this country, and beyond.

Unfortunatly, it is also stuck in a 60s warp regarding nationhood. That is, black and brown people can have countries, but Jews can't. (The fact that many Jews are black or brown seems to have escaped the Church Times. To them, it would seem that Israeli Jews are nothing more than American interlopers come to disinherit afictional 'Palestinian' indigenous population). People must accept that Judaism is not a mere faith or religion, but a people as well. This is why so many black Africans love the story of the Exodus - they can surely identify with it. Or the Dalai Lama. He has bowled over by experiencing a Shabbat in Dharamsala, care of a group of Jews, including rabbis, who visited him around 1990. See the book, The Jew in the Lotus. These people, who have really gone through displacement from their land and exile themselves do understand Jewish aspirations on that one.

Be that as it may, the CT did commission two articles from me - one on antisemitism among Christians in Britain, which led to quite a few prominent Jews who read it (and were even quoted in the article) to decide enough was enough and that the only solution to the problem some Christians have with Jews in this country was to emigrate to Israel.

The second article was more recent, written in August last year. It dealt with the Commission of Anglican and Jewish leaders, which was took place in Jerusalem right after the attempted suicide bombings in Scotland and England. But since then, nothing! They refuse to counter criticisms of their ridiculous articles on Israel, or even corrections of offensive letters from their readers, one of the most recent of which rubbished the Babylonian Talmud - a key source in Judaism - as well as completely mis-dating it. Try doing that with the Koran - they wouldn't dare!

So what is the way forward with the CT, Andrew Brown and accurate reporting? I think the lunch is a good idea. And I wouldn't mind meeting Andrew myself some time. At least he does answer e-mails, which is more than the editor of the Church Times does, or Paul Vallely, come to think about it.

I hope that this very long post does something to alleviate your concerns. A death by suicide of a close friend does touch a nerve. As someone who didn't know Christopher, I did not feel that this was Andrew's worst article, and I do hope he takes the opportunity to be more positive towards yourself in the future.

[Mike Homfray]

Well, it depends whether you wish to read the conservative or liberal view as to which church newspaper you look at....

As for this argument, it would have probably been better done in private, but it is easy to producer something quickly online and then regret it afterwards.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Like an earlier visitor here, whose comments have now disappeared, I would recommend those who are interested in Anglican news to read the CEN [Church of England Newspaper] rather than the Church Times, which seems to have wandered off down some sidetrack of its own in recent years.

[Stephen Marsden]

I hope Andrew's paying for lunch!

(rg writes: actually, I suspect neither of us might be... work it out....!)