The end

Rubbish librarians is calling it a day. Goodbye.

I had that CILIP Chief Executive in the back of my cab

"So I jump into this taxi from Broadcasting House to the House of Commons and the taxidriver looks at me in his mirror. "I don't recognise you," he says," Which are you? Broadcaster or politician?" He's looking quite fierce. "Neither," I reply, "I'm a librarian." His face softens. "Ah, libraries," he says, "My daughter uses the library all the time. That's much better then being a broadcaster or a politician - I don't trust any of them." And there you have it - why libraries (and librarians) are at the heart of the debate about what sort of relationship we want between society and the State: because people care about their libraries."

This encounter sounds unlikely to us. But does it really demonstrate that libraries are "at the heart of the debate about what sort of relationship we want between society and the State"?

If, for example, the cabbie had gone on to say that his daughter also swam regularly, would that mean that swimming pools (and lifeguards) are at the heart of the debate too? And what if the driver had instead replied "My daughter has been invoiced for a book she's sure she returned, I hate librarians, get out of the cab!" ... what would that show?

Infowhelm world

We can't see this phrase catching on. Or "information obesity" for that matter.

The nauseating video is of the usual "gosh there's a lot of information out there" variety - you don't say!

Intute

Intute has always seemed to us to be the embodiment of the "mother knows best" tendency of information literacy and its demise can be seen as a demonstration of the futility of librarians trying to categorise the web on behalf of an uninterested public, quite happy to use search engines

You'd think its termination would bring some humility to those involved but not a bit of it. It was, apparently, "a hotbed of technical innovation" which explored "a staggering range of new technologies" and made "groundbreaking forays into virtual worlds"!

CILIP's "clear and compelling" messages (2)

Since they failed to get someone on Newsnight a few weeks ago, CILIP have become obsessed with the idea of "rapid response" in case of future media requests and building a more general campaign of advocacy in the face of likely cuts. However, they apparently believe that most librarians are incapabable of making a lucid case on their own and have therefore begun to produce a series of one-sheet lists of "compelling" arguments "to help CILIP members and library advocates".

The two lists produced so far take a bullet point approach to defending our profession and, sadly, are of the same standard as earlier CILIP documents we have highlighted.

We can't help thinking that merely parroting that "libraries change lives" will impress no-one, whilst claims that they "act as a cost-saver for society by combating ignorance, alienation, isolation, division and the lack of aspiration" or "stand for important values in our society including intellectual freedom, equality of opportunity, engaged citizenship, informed democracy, and a society in which people have the chance to achieve their potential" are both ludicrous and meaningless. Worse still is the assertion that we "enable learning and literacy from cradle to grave" - not least because it blithely appropriates a phrase associated so closely with the founding of the NHS. And surely it is dangerous to talk of "essential services" such as "author events and exhibitions" at a time when many truly essential services will be reduced.

All sectors will face cuts. These are big claims to make. How about some evidence?

Library 2.0 guru advocates skiving at work

Phil Bradley attacking an innocuous web page written by the Forum for Small Businesses offering advice on how to deal with employees who spend excessive time on Facebook at work. Reasonable reply from the Forum. Like a stroppy teenager, Phil rages "you don't understand"!

Tara Brabazon

Tara Brabazon achieved some notoriety a couple of years ago with The University of Google, a dreadful book which one of the RL team had the misfortune to read.

Flattered that a real academic appeared to be taking their views seriously, she found a ready audience amongst info-lit librarians and has spoken at conferences including LILAC. She, in turn, is probably grateful for the gigs - we can't imagine she gets many other offers.

She thinks librarians are important "because they punctuate the information landscape, controlling and managing enthusiasm and confusion." This shows her in terryfying action (note the ironic overhead projector).