Rav Casley Gera

Things I have learned this morning following an hour foraging around on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website:

1. The Doha round has been suspended
2. The Doha round has been abandoned
3. The collapse of the Doha round is a disaster
4. The collapse of the Doha round is the best outcome for the world’s poor
5. Abolishing agricultural subsidies in the global North is the answer to development
6. Northern agricultural subsidies make little difference to developing countries
7. It was all the US’ fault
8. It was all the EU’s fault

And so on.

Now, I do understand that the point of comment is that you add up and compare the opposing views. But is it really possible to make a comparison between these two comments?

Liz Stuart: “The Doha talks were going to be different from previous rounds… developed countries signed up to slash the billions of dollars in subsidies they pay their farmers, resulting in the dumping of prodcuts… on world markets, driving down prices and putting poor country farmers out of business.”

Daniel Davies: “Cutting EU subsidies is more or less irrelevant to most of the developing world because 95% of EU subsidies are classed a [sic] non-distorting anyway.”

There are, no doubt, naunces which bring these two views together. Probably, it’s about the difference between preventing Northern subsidies being dumped on Africa, which pretty much everyone seems to agree is a bad thing, and actually trying to set up agricultural exports into Europe from Africa, which by no means everyone agrees is a good thing. But the point is, who could possibly know from those two, seemingly irreconcilable statements?

Once again, a real conversation between viewpoints, with facts established, principles clearly outlined, assertions interrogated, is completely absent from the media coverage of this none-more-complex issue. The newspapers and TV simply haven’t got to grips with the complexity and long-term nature of the issues young people are interested in. They’ll tell you the precise order of events on the day the talks collapsed, and report, parrot-like, the succession of official statements where everyone blames everyone else. But a real, detailed discussion of the issues? No chance. The ever-growing litany of named columnists - a tiny handful of whom are any kind of expert - all weigh in, generating more heat than light. Website comment-placers repeat the same barrage of rash and often irrelevant pronouncements: “this just shows that Peter Mandelson is corrupt!” “There were no WMD!” Every site claiming to offer debate and news on the issue has an agenda.

We desperately need a new approach to complex issues like that of world trade. An interrogatory, analytical approach which will provide people with the tools to make informed decisions on the big matters. Factual assertions checked. Evidence required. Statements of principle identified and interrogated.

For the next few months I’m going to be working on Brass Tacks: Africa (working title) - an attempt to set a standard for this kind of journalism. I’ll need help, so send me any useful articles or links you have, and so on.