Robert Fisk

I have tremendous respect for Robert Fisk, the famous journalist who has written on the Middle East for at least three decades.

Fisk's knowledge of the entire region - historical, politcal and geographical - is surely second to none, certainly in the world of journalism. I have read many of his excellent articles in The Independent newspaper (of London) which describe events in Iraq from a non-Bush/American/orthdox viewpoint.

He is usually given front page billing, and rightly so (usually accompanied by a centred picture and the usual brilliant presentation of the Independent, even in its new tabloid format). They are a revelation and so refreshing (and justify the newspaper's name and supposed ethos). This is proven by their heavy linkage from 'alternative' websites (and even conspiracy websites).

He understands all of the changing alliances, former 'good' regimes that are now considered 'bad', and vice versa and so on. He is like a living antidote to the growing trend towards Orwellism, the re-writing of history.

But, today, he has written his worst ever article for The Independent (The sins of our fathers, the folly of man and the art of documenting history, Independent, 5 February 2005). Not surprisingly, it is not about Iraq or foreign affairs; it is a sort of personal memoir on the craft of journalism, historical documentation and modern writing. He says he wrote it by hand.

He talks about how computing and modern data communications have changed the art of journalism and writing but for the worse; how his old telex transmissions were real, on paper and readily available now as historical documents, unaltered in any way (he keeps them all at home). To illustrate this, he refers back to his own notes, some of which document an anecdote whereby Tony Clifton, of BBC Newsnight, met Saddam Hussein back in the late 1970s and was personally driven by the 'dictator' to demonstrate how he was loved by the people on the streets of Baghdad.

Predictably, Clifton now denies all knowledge of the incident - this is the onward march of Orwellism in its most predictable and lamentable form, the altering of the past to fit in with current political orthodoxy. We will undoubtably see a lot more of this in years to come; indeed, in the end, there may even be what you might term 'political software' which will render any past document in a modern, politically acceptable format. You won't even need a Winston Smith to do the drudgery of re-writing.

Fisk seems to be saying that modern IT, laptops and the digital archiving of information lend themselves too easily to alteration, and that's ignoring the practical difficulties of writing with a keyboard.

But then, just like the idiot journalist Jasper Gerard in the Sunday Times Review Section, he uses modern, idiot-moron language, like sentences that begin and end with 'Ouch'. Fisk has just plummeted in my esteem, from the Pantheon of foreign affairs journalism (along with Gareth Jones) to the dungeon of Simpsons-journo-rubbish.

I would say two things to Robert Fisk:

1.) Learn to type. I can hardly believe that a journalist such as Robert Fisk - forty years in the business - has never learnt to type. It is inconceivable. Try learning to type; it will make writing on a computer effortless (just like this article I am writing).

Computer programs such as Word are brilliant for writing any document. You can structure a document using outlines, change the format, style, order and presentation of the document until it is just right. Then, you can archive the final, authentic document and perhaps even save a copy on good, old-fashioned paper.

Okay, it is a nightmare trying to maintain an archive on a computer (you land up with a mass of files and end up deleting the wrong files; I've done it at home many times). Also, they are susceptible to Winston Smith style alteration.

2.) Eliminate any modern, colloquial, Simpsons-moron words like 'Ouch'. This is moronic and also a total double standard. It is an insult to serious readers. How can you complain about modern technology, the alteration of historical fact, and everything, and then use modern, moron language which is designed to reduce the population to moron level? It is hypocritical.

Words like 'ouch' in a serious article in a serious newspaper demonstrate the need to conform to modern trends and stuff - in a way, it is just like using Newspeak.

The Robert Fisk article was a total disappointment.