Just had to commit these to (virtual) paper...
A caller to Any Answers on Radio 4 has just said "Well, it's just another nail in the catalogue of this government..." WTF?
A while back, there was a report on R4 (I do listen to other stations too, honest!) from the BBC's correspondent in Germany. He was doing a piece on Angela Merckel's problems and how she was no longer seen as unassailable in parts of Germany that were her strongholds. He reported that the German press had said that she no longer gave the impression of being the Iron Chancellor. The BBC man said that this was making reference to Margaret Thatcher. Really? The German press still make references to a former British PM who left office over 20 years ago? So, absolutely no connection then to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian aristocrat who unified Germany in the 1870s and was known as the Iron Chancellor? Of course not. No parochial attitudes or dumbing down at the BBC...
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
What interests the public?
The whole Twittersphere is apparently awash with the identities of the people who currently have superinjunctions in place to stop the press exposing their extra-marital activities. In fact, because they are SUPERinjunctions, the press can't even mention that these restrictions are in place! No, I haven't seen any Tweets detailing the names (although I have heard who some are from other sources). The press is apparently ticked off that it cannot publish the lurid exposes that it wants to and we had the former editor of The Sun on PM on Radio 4 tonight telling us why it was awful that we, the public, were being denied access to this prime gossip and how it was going against "the public interest".
"Gossip" was the term he actually used and I think that the use of the term exposes a couple of problems with the Fleet Street (!) press. Firstly, "gossip" is speculation, hearsay, possibly tenuous, the product of Chinese whispers, mangled through retelling. There has always been a place for such rumours - the original newspapers popular in the coffee houses of the 17th century were awash with tittle-tattle and innuendo. However, until recently, we had taken to separating what is 'factual news' and comment from the gossip column: the latter was clearly delineated and in reading it, one knew what one was getting. Nowadays, with the ongoing cult of celebrity (in fact, mini- or micro-celebrity if truth be told), many of our 'newspapers' are little more than cover-to-cover lazily-fabricated rubbish about the lives of the (not very) rich and (hardly) famous. These so-called celebs probably don't even care what is written about them, because, having one's name in the paper by any means is counted as a win. Occasionally, the tabloids get caught out when their poetic license overtakes the available facts and the victim of their fantasy objects to a less than factual depiction (e.g. Max Mosley may enjoy an S&M orgy but NOT involving a Nazi theme). News - involving 'the real world' rather than Chantelle, Will'n'Kate, Jordan (sorry, Katie Price) et al - has pretty much disappeared from most tabloids.
Secondly, where is the "public interest" in a footballer or an actor having an affair? It just seems a bit immature to be filling papers with this stuff: some adults who happen to be slightly famous have had sex with people other than their marriage partners and the papers have to point this out. To what end? How do you, me or anyone else benefit from this knowledge? Do we feel better because their 'perfect' lives have been exposed as a sham? I don't - I just feel a bit grubby, a bit less good for knowing, as if I have intruded on a moment of private grief. Actors, footballers, Big Brother contestants and so forth have not set themselves up as moral beacons, giving us instructions as to how to lead a pure and blameless life. They are just some people who we kid ourselves we know because we have seen them on TV. We don't know them at all, but I know that they will suffer all the human failings and foibles that you, me and everyone else displays. There is no 'public interest' in exposing such failure in the press. If it was a politician who set him- or herself up as a moral crusader who got caught in flagrante then, by all means, point out their hypocrisy but even then, we don't need to gloat and drool over every last detail.
The sad thing is though, we seem to be buying into this crap as the red tops still sell in large volume. However, we truly have the press we deserve as long as we accept this shoddy fayre as 'journalism'. We have the power to do something about it - stop buying the offending rags (you know which ones).
"Gossip" was the term he actually used and I think that the use of the term exposes a couple of problems with the Fleet Street (!) press. Firstly, "gossip" is speculation, hearsay, possibly tenuous, the product of Chinese whispers, mangled through retelling. There has always been a place for such rumours - the original newspapers popular in the coffee houses of the 17th century were awash with tittle-tattle and innuendo. However, until recently, we had taken to separating what is 'factual news' and comment from the gossip column: the latter was clearly delineated and in reading it, one knew what one was getting. Nowadays, with the ongoing cult of celebrity (in fact, mini- or micro-celebrity if truth be told), many of our 'newspapers' are little more than cover-to-cover lazily-fabricated rubbish about the lives of the (not very) rich and (hardly) famous. These so-called celebs probably don't even care what is written about them, because, having one's name in the paper by any means is counted as a win. Occasionally, the tabloids get caught out when their poetic license overtakes the available facts and the victim of their fantasy objects to a less than factual depiction (e.g. Max Mosley may enjoy an S&M orgy but NOT involving a Nazi theme). News - involving 'the real world' rather than Chantelle, Will'n'Kate, Jordan (sorry, Katie Price) et al - has pretty much disappeared from most tabloids.
Secondly, where is the "public interest" in a footballer or an actor having an affair? It just seems a bit immature to be filling papers with this stuff: some adults who happen to be slightly famous have had sex with people other than their marriage partners and the papers have to point this out. To what end? How do you, me or anyone else benefit from this knowledge? Do we feel better because their 'perfect' lives have been exposed as a sham? I don't - I just feel a bit grubby, a bit less good for knowing, as if I have intruded on a moment of private grief. Actors, footballers, Big Brother contestants and so forth have not set themselves up as moral beacons, giving us instructions as to how to lead a pure and blameless life. They are just some people who we kid ourselves we know because we have seen them on TV. We don't know them at all, but I know that they will suffer all the human failings and foibles that you, me and everyone else displays. There is no 'public interest' in exposing such failure in the press. If it was a politician who set him- or herself up as a moral crusader who got caught in flagrante then, by all means, point out their hypocrisy but even then, we don't need to gloat and drool over every last detail.
The sad thing is though, we seem to be buying into this crap as the red tops still sell in large volume. However, we truly have the press we deserve as long as we accept this shoddy fayre as 'journalism'. We have the power to do something about it - stop buying the offending rags (you know which ones).
Saturday, 7 May 2011
A Deafening Silence
Not too long ago, we were told that we had to get involved in Libya because the ruthless dictatorship in control of that country was intent on murdering its own citizens. The very least that we in the West could do was to step in and protect those people. OK, whilst I was, admittedly, sceptical about that (no real plan about what to do once the Colonel's troops were stopped outside Benghazi; not enough leadership from Arab countries so that it looked like the West meddling (yet again) in the Middle East for example), it was probably the right thing to do plus we actually had UN backing for it too (that is, as long as we leave aside declarations of 'no mission creep' whilst targeting "command and control assets" that just happen to contain the dictator and his family. Of course it is not about regime change is it? No, leave that aside).
However, the inconsistency of the West in its dealings in the Middle East has come to the fore once again when we see the massive non-response to what is happening in Syria. As far as I can see we have a despot in power using the state machinery to try to crush fairly peaceful demonstrations against his rule. People are being arrested in large numbers (the adolescent males from all households in some places?!), whilst others are being killed and tortured. Um - what is the difference here? It sounds as if these people need 'protection' too. I'd hate to think that, just because Syria is counted as a rare ally of the West in the Middle East, it should be given carte blanche by the West to go about the mass murder of anyone calling for greater democracy in that country.
That couldn't happen, could it?
However, the inconsistency of the West in its dealings in the Middle East has come to the fore once again when we see the massive non-response to what is happening in Syria. As far as I can see we have a despot in power using the state machinery to try to crush fairly peaceful demonstrations against his rule. People are being arrested in large numbers (the adolescent males from all households in some places?!), whilst others are being killed and tortured. Um - what is the difference here? It sounds as if these people need 'protection' too. I'd hate to think that, just because Syria is counted as a rare ally of the West in the Middle East, it should be given carte blanche by the West to go about the mass murder of anyone calling for greater democracy in that country.
That couldn't happen, could it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)