Little Atoms with Julie Burchill and Chas Newkey-Burden
On this week's show Neil Denny talks to writers Julie Burchill and Chas Newkey-Burden about their book Not In My Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy.
Julie Burchill has been writing her often controversial journalism for almost 30 years, for publications as diverse as The NME, The Spectator, Daily Mail, The Times, The Express and The Guardian. She was also founding editor of The Modern Review. Julie's colourful private and social life has generated almost as many column inches over the years. She has written numerous novels, one of which Sugar Rush, has been adapted for television by Channel Four. Julie has also made a number of documentaries for Sky.
Chas Newkey-Burden is a journalist and the author of a number of books including Great Email Disasters and Amy Winehouse: She Told Us She Was Trouble.
Resonance 104.4FM Friday August 8th 19.00 - 19.30
Julie Burchill has been writing her often controversial journalism for almost 30 years, for publications as diverse as The NME, The Spectator, Daily Mail, The Times, The Express and The Guardian. She was also founding editor of The Modern Review. Julie's colourful private and social life has generated almost as many column inches over the years. She has written numerous novels, one of which Sugar Rush, has been adapted for television by Channel Four. Julie has also made a number of documentaries for Sky.
Chas Newkey-Burden is a journalist and the author of a number of books including Great Email Disasters and Amy Winehouse: She Told Us She Was Trouble.
Resonance 104.4FM Friday August 8th 19.00 - 19.30
posted by Little Atoms at 7:33 pm
8 Comments:
Excellent. Could you ask Mr Newkey-Burden if his now widely-celebrated self-reviewing on Amazon is hypocrisy? I'm not aware of him speaking out against this practice; so presumably it isn't. How about writing for the Guardian while writing for an Israeli news site that the paper's editorials on Israel, are so biased they would make Osama Bin Laden blush? Surely, that's dirty money. Or perhaps writing for the same website: "I am an altogether softer writer, so when members of my profession publish sensationalist or intrusive stories, I don’t sit and flog myself on their behalf."
While telling diary columns he was delighted that Amy Winehouse's wife was going so badly because his book would sell more?
Perhaps a little more pertinently, is Julie Burchill's latest outing - which is specifically in large part a polemic against people who take the science of global warming seriously - really deserving of such an easy ride on Little Atoms? I mean, you hardly pushed her at all on the small matter of George Monbiot being absolutely right on the general subject of the greenhouse effect, leaving a lot more time for her to yuk it up about him being posh (which itself is the clearest and most perfect example of argumentum ad hominem I've seen in years - he could be the Marquis of Blinking Tavistock and it wouldn't change a thing about carbon dioxide).
This is not the first offence either; Brendan O'Neill was also allowed to get away with far too much specious bollocks in the name of "contrarianism". If I found you a 9/11 truther who was also "deliciously polemical" and turned a good phrase, then would you have him on? Because that's the level of respect for the facts that you're dealing with here.
With invitations like these, it's getting very hard to avoid the suspicion that the main criterion for being invited on Little Atoms is political congeniality to the hosts, rather than the stated aims of the show. If it's going to be "Decent FM" then perhaps it ought to say so more clearly on the tin.
Actually Daniel, only a very tiny part of Julie and Chas's book is "specifically...a polemic against people who take the science of global warming seriously", and indeed even that isn't strictly accurate. I don't think either of them (or even remarkably enough, Brendan) actually doubt the veracity of MMGW, they just take issue with the disproportionate effect that proposed efforts to combat it will have on the world's poor. I think James Delingpole, Claire Fox or Austin Williams would have been more suitable targets for that accusation.
the main criterion for being invited on Little Atoms is political congeniality to the hosts
Damn! Despite our guest list over the last three years being a veritable Who's Who of "Decency", and indeed the humble hosts of this show being founding signatories of that epoch changing document the Euston Manifesto, I thought we had gotten away with it. If it wasn't for you pesky bloggers etc...
As John Lydon once said, ever get the feeling you've been made a fool of?
I don't think either of them (or even remarkably enough, Brendan) actually doubt the veracity of MMGW, they just take issue with the disproportionate effect that proposed efforts to combat it will have on the world's poor.
I can find you three or four decent, articulate people who don't actually doubt that the two towers were destroyed by aeroplanes but take issue with the disproportionate emphasis on Islamic terrorism rather than FBI/CIA connections - shall we start talking times?
I was aware that you lot and Richard had political views, but it certainly wasn't always the case that you used your Resonance FM show as a platform for them. The original remit of Little Atoms was that it was going to be about science and rationalism in an interesting sense (I think you've rewritten history somewhat in your description on the website btw). Now it seems that, frankly, if you're on the Harry's Place blogroll (or its expanded version, the Harry's Place contributor list) you're on "Little Atoms". Shall we agree that it is rarely good news for any media enterprise when it's pressed into the service of a political clique?
I mean, what the hell, Delingpole? I didn't even realise you'd had that idiot on and would have complained vociferously if I had.
This is absolute cartoon Decent Leftism that even Nick Cohen would be ashamed of. If Delingpole makes the cut, then there is no citerion at all for being invited onto your show other than willingness to sneer at people who were right about the Iraq War when you were wrong.
Oh yes, and:
they just take issue with the disproportionate effect that proposed efforts to combat it will have on the world's poor
The original "Little Atoms" might have taken some trouble to find out how ludicrously untrue this statement is.
Arf, Julie doing Julie.
You'd better e-mail me those names then Daniel.
neil@littleatoms.com
and I'll mail you back a longer response.
N
Could you set up the RSS thing on Little Atoms blog? That would help a lot.
The names I had in mind were Robin Ramsay, Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, and if you've got a response, it might be a good idea to post it on the show's blog.
Seriously, Delingpole?
Modne,
Which RSS feed were you looking for?
The blog is set up with RSS:
Little Atoms RSS
The podcast feed is here:
Podcast RSS
Best,
Sid
Post a Comment
<< Home