Characterising the reaction to Cummings as about being about people overreacting to a small violation of the rules is misleading. The issue wasn’t the initial rule violation, it was that the initial denial and lack of even token punishment was symbolic of a wider issue in the Johnson government with corruption and cronyism. Caring about hypocrisy and corruption among leaders is entirely rational as it is indicative of how they will make other decisions in the future.
This seems like a post-rationalization. IIRC the way it played out over a number of days was that initially it wasn’t clear what the facts were, and hence what if anything Cummings had done wrong (e.g. whether his journey had been legal, or at least justified). And even if he had done something wrong, I heard one pundit point out that as Cummings wasn’t a minister or public-facing figure there was no requirement for him to resign or be fired (rather than apologise or be disciplined in some way).
But nonetheless the media picture right from the start was that this maverick egg-head weirdo must be guilty of something, even if they weren’t sure what exactly. And the public reacted accordingly.
For example, 3 days before Cummings’ press conference (which IIRC was the first time his side of the story was fully set out) I heard a radio phone-in about what an evil character Cummings must be, in which callers were mostly accusing him of risking his parents’ health by going to stay with them. Or saying he must have stopped at a petrol station and so risked people there (he denied this). It later turned out he hadn’t even stayed in his parents’ house, or had close contact with them, but stayed in another building nearby.
So then it was a question of, was his main journey illegal (with much detailed media analysis of the fine points of the law)? Or if not, how about the short trip to Barnard Castle? Which is what most people—the narrative—have now settled on.
What this all shows is that in this trial by media, Cummings was presumed guilty from the start; and then it was just a matter of finding some crime to pin on him. And once something was found that seemed enough like one, everyone could congratulate themselves that they’d ‘known’ all along, and so their outrage had always been justified.
(I can’t recall which cognitive bias this is—but quite a typical example.)
(To avoid doubt, as I turned out I think it’s very likely he broke the rules and adjusted his story to try to exonerate himself. And clearly Boris mishandled it badly. But my point isn’t about whether he/they turned out to be in the wrong, it’s about the fact the media had it in for Cummings, and had no trouble swaying the public accordingly.)
Characterising the reaction to Cummings as about being about people overreacting to a small violation of the rules is misleading. The issue wasn’t the initial rule violation, it was that the initial denial and lack of even token punishment was symbolic of a wider issue in the Johnson government with corruption and cronyism. Caring about hypocrisy and corruption among leaders is entirely rational as it is indicative of how they will make other decisions in the future.
This seems like a post-rationalization. IIRC the way it played out over a number of days was that initially it wasn’t clear what the facts were, and hence what if anything Cummings had done wrong (e.g. whether his journey had been legal, or at least justified). And even if he had done something wrong, I heard one pundit point out that as Cummings wasn’t a minister or public-facing figure there was no requirement for him to resign or be fired (rather than apologise or be disciplined in some way).
But nonetheless the media picture right from the start was that this maverick egg-head weirdo must be guilty of something, even if they weren’t sure what exactly. And the public reacted accordingly.
For example, 3 days before Cummings’ press conference (which IIRC was the first time his side of the story was fully set out) I heard a radio phone-in about what an evil character Cummings must be, in which callers were mostly accusing him of risking his parents’ health by going to stay with them. Or saying he must have stopped at a petrol station and so risked people there (he denied this). It later turned out he hadn’t even stayed in his parents’ house, or had close contact with them, but stayed in another building nearby.
So then it was a question of, was his main journey illegal (with much detailed media analysis of the fine points of the law)? Or if not, how about the short trip to Barnard Castle? Which is what most people—the narrative—have now settled on.
What this all shows is that in this trial by media, Cummings was presumed guilty from the start; and then it was just a matter of finding some crime to pin on him. And once something was found that seemed enough like one, everyone could congratulate themselves that they’d ‘known’ all along, and so their outrage had always been justified.
(I can’t recall which cognitive bias this is—but quite a typical example.)
(To avoid doubt, as I turned out I think it’s very likely he broke the rules and adjusted his story to try to exonerate himself. And clearly Boris mishandled it badly. But my point isn’t about whether he/they turned out to be in the wrong, it’s about the fact the media had it in for Cummings, and had no trouble swaying the public accordingly.)