So Howitzer Hughes has wound up his four part series on Jeremy Nell (Jerm Warfare) and Marcel Jahnke. Clearly, Hughes was angered by Jerms' commentary on his work. Personally, I think if someone comments publicly on the quality of another persons work, as Jerm did, then they should expect a response. Hughes has given that response, and then some. I hope that draws a line under it, as I like the work produced by both.
Jerm has some fascinating guests, speaking about every subject under the sun, and interviewing is a tricky skill (which I certainly don't possess), at which he excels. Jerm's a gifted cartoonist and engaging commentator. Hughes' academic style and evidence-packed explorations, on a whole range of topics, are highly detailed and excellent resources for people who want to look further into whatever that topic might be. In short, both provide good stuff to their audiences, imho.
We all have egos, I am no exception. I've certainly flung my dummy around a few times. Unfortunately, in my view and in my own experience, public disputes run the risk of coming across like handbags at dawn, even when that is not the intention. Of course, everyone has the right to defend themselves, but what matters are the issues not the personalities, again imho.
Disputes detract from the most important thing, which is reporting of the issue in hand and providing evidence to our audiences that they won't be able to access in the mainstream. That is, after all, why people engage with the independent media in the first place. I hope UK Column and Jerm will come to recognise, as I do, that Hughes has raised some valid points. His concerns may be misplaced, the questions he asks may be without merit, but I think there is evidence and reason behind them. Dialogue is the only productive way to answer them in my view, but it really is none of my business.
Despite some minor disagreements, I have said many times that I do not think UK Column are "controlled opposition." I don't think Jerm is either. There is nothing wrong with expressing your views, nor with disagreement. In fact, I think if we had more adversarial debates in the independent media that might be useful, and potentially interesting for audiences.
No one, as Hughes stresses in his work, has a monopoly on the truth or can be certain they are unquestionably right. Such claims are the province of the mainstream, not people who actually seek the truth. Perhaps by thrashing these things out in respectful debates, we in the independent media and audiences might all have a better chance of at least getting closer to the truth.
With that in mind, after UK Column recently put out a video, in which Jerm participated, where I felt they misrepresented the arguments against multipolarity, we spoke about it. I absolutely accept that this was the result of a difference of opinion and perhaps some mutual misunderstanding of opposing arguments. I chatted to Mike Robinson, from UK Column, and Jerm, and both were very open to exploring the issue of multipolarity further. As is often the case when people talk, we discovered we shared more areas of agreement than disagreement.
As a result, this morning, I recorded a discussion with Jerm which I think he intends air next week, some time. I hope people will find it interesting.
https://davidahughes.net/jeremy-nell-marcel-jahnke-and-china-part-4/
