Recently, on the BBC show The One Show, Jeremy Clarkson made a bad and tactless joke. Oh. The end....right? After all, Clarkson making bad, tactless jokes has become one of the universal constants that are the cornerstones of our understanding of the Universe. Except, this time, it collided with another upstart cornerstone: self-righteous indignant outrage. The BBC was inundated with over 21,000 complaints. Actually, I don't know if that counts as an inundation these days, but for dramatic purposes let's assume it does. Hilariously, Unison threatened to report Clarkson to the police. I wish they would, so the police could laugh at them in their stupid faces. Hmmm....perhaps I should take a step back and give that comment some context.......
There's an idea. Clarkson's comment about shooting strikers was not said in isolation. The joke wasn't even about the strikes; it was at the expense of the BBC's need for political balance, a deliberately exaggerated opinion to counter a previous one. Therefore, those 21,000 complainants comprise two sets of people:
1. People who saw the original broadcast, or have since seen it or the transcripts, but didn't recognise the full context. These people are just plain thick. You can't hold Clarkson responsible for thick people's thickness. If we all had to go around taking into account people's potential thickness before speaking, then god help us we'd never say anything. We'd become a nation of mutes, carefully avoiding any sort of interaction with anyone else ever. Hmmm....that does sound quite tempting now I think about it.......anyway;
2. People who haven't heard or seen transcripts of the full comments, but have just heard the "strikers should be shot" part. Now even here, I'd hope that most reasonable people would recognise that Clarkson, if he had said this in isolation, wasn't being entirely serious, and although it is a bad joke it's still just a joke. If the BBC is going to sack everyone who makes a bad joke then it's going to run on a skeleton crew of David Mitchell, Charlie Brooker and the Irish bloke off Mock The Week. Hmmmm....that does sound quite tempting now I think about it......
People in category 2 exist purely because large parts of the media knowingly misreported the story. This whole sorry episode is quite well-timed, against the backdrop of the Leveson enquiry, showing that media conduct isn't just about such extreme examples as phone hacking and extreme harassment. I suppose it says a lot that if I was to say "gasp! The media deliberately misrepresented the facts to stir up controversy and sell more papers/ get more attention! They're all a bunch of publicity-hungry shitvultures!", the reaction would be "well.....duuuuh". We are cynically accepting of this state of affairs.
Meanwhile, one suspects that Clarkson himself and the BBC, once they're done humbly bowing their heads, tugging their forelocks and offering well-practised meek apologies, are feeling quite smug about the whole thing. Because as it turns out, Clarkson has a new something out to sell. In fact I only know this because i read some other commentary from some other media outlet that cynically pointed out that Clarkson has a new......ah, nuts...I've fallen into the same trap, haven't I? Sorry. Turns out that they're all a bunch of self-publicising profit-weasels! Duuuuh.....
There is another sub-section of people in that 21,000: people who heard what they wanted to hear. We all do this, we don't hopefully all choose to hear the worst parts. It's almost like some people actually want to be offended.......I do remember reading some research recently that showed that you get a definite, measurable surge of adrenaline from being presented with opinions that are counter to your own. You get a kick, a buzz from being opposed or affronted.
But there's got to be more to it than that surely? Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Loathe as I am to ever go anywhere near agreeing with what that Ancient Daemon of the Void said - and pointing out very strongly that I, unlike her, am not saying it whilst chortling with glee, the putrid intestinal fluids of the poor dribbling down my chin - she may have had a point. Most of us now live, if not in cities, then at least in what used to be identifiably independent towns and villages that have now been swallowed up into some vast identikit sprawling blah. Do we still have a sense of community, of communal cohesion, structure, hierarchy that we can feel part of, have an identifiable place and role in, recognise and be recognised by? And if, lacking that, we have become like the plankton or barely conscious fish of some vast shoal, entities in a vast grey formless sea of faceless individualism, schlomping from one existential crisis to the next, how do we in that sense measure any sense of self, claim any status to our individualism? Why indeed am I writing this blog?
Saturday 3 December 2011
Sunday 6 November 2011
Everyone Is An Opinion, or, Democracy Has A Funny Smell Coming From The Corner
Democracy was invented by the Greeks. George Papandreou, to be precise. After he made the shocking suggestion that the people should have a say in their fate, to a collective dropping of jaws that caused a small earthquake in central Europe, the response was varied and frenzied, from the media and politicians alike. Buried beneath the various surprised "Wooo democracy!"s, dark "how irresponsible"s and cynical "just trying to save himself"'s was a certain uncomfortable implication.
It was more plainly evident in another case of spontaneous referendumitis that threatened to break out earlier in the UK when backbenchers again had the temerity to suggest asking the opinion of the citizen body, this time on EU membership. The Cabinet's response, along the lines of "its too big an issue and the wrong time", was a more revealing look at the implication inherent in the world's most prevalent system of democracy - representative democracy. An implication which is not so much ignored as actively avoided whilst noses are held. The stinking leprous elephant in the corner.
I'm going to make a shocking admission: I know practically bugger all about economics. I'd have to do some very hefty research before being able to give a detailed list of the pros and cons of EU membership. I wouldn't trust me to have a say on such crucial matters that need such technical knowledge. Sure, I've got an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions and arseholes ...everyone IS one. So what I do instead is elect someone who hopefully does know these kinds of things. I judge how knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy a candidate seems alongside how closely their views mirror my own and then I say "go to it then, represent me". A referendum means asking the opinions of an entire country. Some of whom may well know plenty about the topic, some of whom will, like me, know bugger all. Everyone's opinion will be counted as equal regardless.
Imagine if a full referendum were announced on EU membership. The propaganda war would begin immediately. We know what positions the media would take. We all know which papers are this wing or that, and we can probably write the headlines ourselves without even needing to ever buy the damn things. But people tend to stick to what they know and agree with. Look at America, for example, where politicised and polarised news organisations and broadcasters are the norm and you could go your whole life only ever getting your information from Fox. Sorry, a bit late for Halloween I know. How many of us take the time to absorb opposing viewpoints? I avoid the right wing press like a plague ridden elephant.
The flip-side of this coin is that while it's easy to think that listeners to or readers of a particular media source are sheep being told what to think, it's not the media which tells people what to think; it's the opposite. The media will stick to a line because they know it's what their readers or viewers want to hear. The Daily Mail will always be the Daily Mail, and it's readers will always know what they're going to get and buy it happily. The effect is that our existing views get reinforced and existing presumption, prejudice and instinctive reaction get external validation. Every new bit of information gets filtered through a prism of these components, in the form of our chosen media outlets.
That smelly elephant quietly falling to pieces in the corner is the implication that in a representative democracy we are acknowledging our own inadequacy, that we are unqualified to make all the tough decisions involved in running a country. If the sort of uninhibited, free democracy that a referendum embodies is a national gauging of deep-held opinion, then representative democracy is a buffer that should allow a degree of separation between instinct and decision.
It was more plainly evident in another case of spontaneous referendumitis that threatened to break out earlier in the UK when backbenchers again had the temerity to suggest asking the opinion of the citizen body, this time on EU membership. The Cabinet's response, along the lines of "its too big an issue and the wrong time", was a more revealing look at the implication inherent in the world's most prevalent system of democracy - representative democracy. An implication which is not so much ignored as actively avoided whilst noses are held. The stinking leprous elephant in the corner.
I'm going to make a shocking admission: I know practically bugger all about economics. I'd have to do some very hefty research before being able to give a detailed list of the pros and cons of EU membership. I wouldn't trust me to have a say on such crucial matters that need such technical knowledge. Sure, I've got an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions and arseholes ...everyone IS one. So what I do instead is elect someone who hopefully does know these kinds of things. I judge how knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy a candidate seems alongside how closely their views mirror my own and then I say "go to it then, represent me". A referendum means asking the opinions of an entire country. Some of whom may well know plenty about the topic, some of whom will, like me, know bugger all. Everyone's opinion will be counted as equal regardless.
Imagine if a full referendum were announced on EU membership. The propaganda war would begin immediately. We know what positions the media would take. We all know which papers are this wing or that, and we can probably write the headlines ourselves without even needing to ever buy the damn things. But people tend to stick to what they know and agree with. Look at America, for example, where politicised and polarised news organisations and broadcasters are the norm and you could go your whole life only ever getting your information from Fox. Sorry, a bit late for Halloween I know. How many of us take the time to absorb opposing viewpoints? I avoid the right wing press like a plague ridden elephant.
The flip-side of this coin is that while it's easy to think that listeners to or readers of a particular media source are sheep being told what to think, it's not the media which tells people what to think; it's the opposite. The media will stick to a line because they know it's what their readers or viewers want to hear. The Daily Mail will always be the Daily Mail, and it's readers will always know what they're going to get and buy it happily. The effect is that our existing views get reinforced and existing presumption, prejudice and instinctive reaction get external validation. Every new bit of information gets filtered through a prism of these components, in the form of our chosen media outlets.
That smelly elephant quietly falling to pieces in the corner is the implication that in a representative democracy we are acknowledging our own inadequacy, that we are unqualified to make all the tough decisions involved in running a country. If the sort of uninhibited, free democracy that a referendum embodies is a national gauging of deep-held opinion, then representative democracy is a buffer that should allow a degree of separation between instinct and decision.
Monday 24 October 2011
Ian Hislop Rides Again
You only need to search on YouTube for 'Ian Hislop Question Time' to see demonstrations of what an eloquent, passionate and witty debater he is. But for a while now, he seems to have been cruising on HIGNFY. Too happy to go for a one-liner, a quick laugh. I say this with the rider that it may well just be down to the editing of the show, but whatever the case the impression given on Friday's episode was of a slumbering beast being awoken.
The stick that did the prodding was Tory MP Louise Mensch. The two, sitting side by side (which only served to heighten the impact of what was to come), had already clashed over innuendo in the media coverage of Liam Fox, and again when she somewhat undermined her own position with her comments about Mike Hancock. But the main engagement came on the subject of the Occupy protests. Mensch made a flippantly cynical comment about the protesters tweeting on iphones and queuing for Starbucks whilst complaining about capitalism. On the face of it this might seem like a fair comment but of course it vastly oversimplified and then disingenuously misrepresented what the protests are about. Mensch took some flack from Paul Merton and, er, Danny Baker but maybe thought she was going to get off lightly. Then, off to starboard, HMS Hislop hove into view bringing all guns to bear on the hapless foe. But just as he seemed primed to strike, he hesitated. What was this? Surely not doubt or, heaven forbid, mercy? Fear not, for he was merely preparing himself to unleash a mighty blow. A pause, a stutter, a shake of the head: "......no.......it's just so obvious, I can't be bothered".......
A more withering put-down I have seldom heard. How to destroy someone's credibility in 8 words. Of course, he could be bothered actually, and explained to the nice Tory why she was wrong with the weary patience of a frustrated school teacher. I struggle to remember Louise Mensch saying much of any substance after this. Again it could be down to the editing, though I'd appreciate the karmic justice if it did turn out that she's been misrepresented. She kept beaming and laughing in all the right places though, the brave insubstantial face of modern politics.
This is the kind of passionately scathing performance we need from Hislop but so rarely seem to get. I hope there aren't reams of gold dust left in the editing suite and that the move to BBC1 hasn't neutered the show as a satirical force, or that the producers are more focused these days on producing a half hour of punchy prime time comedy above all else. The satirical edge is needed, and Hislop needs to be delivering that with all the skill of his QT appearances and all the nous and wit of Private Eye. Because, HIGNFY - dear old HIGNFY - cheap jokes about Eric Pickles and Nick Clegg will not cut it if satire is to remain part of the job description. We all might as well go and watch Mock The Week otherwise. There, I said it.
The stick that did the prodding was Tory MP Louise Mensch. The two, sitting side by side (which only served to heighten the impact of what was to come), had already clashed over innuendo in the media coverage of Liam Fox, and again when she somewhat undermined her own position with her comments about Mike Hancock. But the main engagement came on the subject of the Occupy protests. Mensch made a flippantly cynical comment about the protesters tweeting on iphones and queuing for Starbucks whilst complaining about capitalism. On the face of it this might seem like a fair comment but of course it vastly oversimplified and then disingenuously misrepresented what the protests are about. Mensch took some flack from Paul Merton and, er, Danny Baker but maybe thought she was going to get off lightly. Then, off to starboard, HMS Hislop hove into view bringing all guns to bear on the hapless foe. But just as he seemed primed to strike, he hesitated. What was this? Surely not doubt or, heaven forbid, mercy? Fear not, for he was merely preparing himself to unleash a mighty blow. A pause, a stutter, a shake of the head: "......no.......it's just so obvious, I can't be bothered".......
A more withering put-down I have seldom heard. How to destroy someone's credibility in 8 words. Of course, he could be bothered actually, and explained to the nice Tory why she was wrong with the weary patience of a frustrated school teacher. I struggle to remember Louise Mensch saying much of any substance after this. Again it could be down to the editing, though I'd appreciate the karmic justice if it did turn out that she's been misrepresented. She kept beaming and laughing in all the right places though, the brave insubstantial face of modern politics.
This is the kind of passionately scathing performance we need from Hislop but so rarely seem to get. I hope there aren't reams of gold dust left in the editing suite and that the move to BBC1 hasn't neutered the show as a satirical force, or that the producers are more focused these days on producing a half hour of punchy prime time comedy above all else. The satirical edge is needed, and Hislop needs to be delivering that with all the skill of his QT appearances and all the nous and wit of Private Eye. Because, HIGNFY - dear old HIGNFY - cheap jokes about Eric Pickles and Nick Clegg will not cut it if satire is to remain part of the job description. We all might as well go and watch Mock The Week otherwise. There, I said it.
Saturday 22 October 2011
The Dark Matter Matter
Let me be frank at the commencement: I am a complete amateur. An interested layman. Basically, I really don't know very much about any of this. All my "knowledge" comes from documentaries on TV, articles in the mainstream media, and books aimed at amateurs like myself. Thing is, it's a great time to be one. TV is terrified of making anyone have to think for too long whilst scientists have spotted the lucrative market for giving us all the interesting stuff with the hard stuff taken out. Accessibility is the watch-word and life is good. It's sort of like how PC's these days shove all that nasty technical code and whatnot into the background and give us a nice, friendly, clicky interface. I can learn about the cutting edge of theoretical physics without having to know what 2+2 equals.
Actually, that might turn out to be a good thing because there's an obvious danger to having all this accessible knowledge floating around. Here follows a cautionary tale (for perhaps some physicists have been adding 2 and 2 and getting an imaginary number...):
The bulk of my science diet comes from TV, mainly the BBC. For many a year now, and without knowing how the BBC operates on these matters I'd have to guess it's some sort of editorial guideline, any documentary on any subject that has - directly or indirectly - invoked dark matter, has done so in such a way as to imply that the theories of dark matter and dark energy are pretty much fact. Unproven but not disputed. Just a matter of time until proven, right? However, I recently started reading a book called "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" - one of those accessible science books - by Michael Brooks. It is, by the way excellent. A very good example of how to do it without dumbing down or over-simplifying, mixing well-chosen metaphors and interesting asides with small doses of hard science (my head started hurting at one point, when he was explaining the maths behind alpha, but it was a brief moment). Anyway, whilst taking us through the mystery of where or what 96% of the Universe is, a personal bomb-shell is dropped: MOND / MOG. That's right: WORLDCAT. Worldcat ate it. The furball will destroy us all. And you thought lolcats were the nadir of humanity......
Seriously though, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or Modified Gravity. Is it just that gravity works differently over large distances? In hindsight, the notion that perhaps science that is hundreds of years old might need tweaking, what with all we've learnt in the meantime, doesn't seem that shocking. And it seems to me to be a. eminently sensible and b. just plain good science to first of all systematically check your assumptions before going off and inventing theoretical exotic particles or forms of mass/ energy to fill in the gaps. But the main thing is that there are alternative theories. Only you'd have no idea, as I had no idea, if you were relying on mainstream TV for your fix.
This is not an attack on the BBC science output. I understand these documentaries generally have an hour-long slot in which to do their things and the necessary pedantry would kill them. However, they're presenting - intentionally or otherwise - one unproven theory as universally accepted principle. I'm to blame for relying on a narrow selection of sources, of course. Though Brooks acknowledges that fashion and publicity can be just as powerful in science as in showbiz. Is there a danger that if one idea becomes the "fashionable" one in the eyes of the wider public, that can create a feedback that would influence scientists' perceptions and presumptions, and affect how research and funding for research are targeted?
Actually, that might turn out to be a good thing because there's an obvious danger to having all this accessible knowledge floating around. Here follows a cautionary tale (for perhaps some physicists have been adding 2 and 2 and getting an imaginary number...):
The bulk of my science diet comes from TV, mainly the BBC. For many a year now, and without knowing how the BBC operates on these matters I'd have to guess it's some sort of editorial guideline, any documentary on any subject that has - directly or indirectly - invoked dark matter, has done so in such a way as to imply that the theories of dark matter and dark energy are pretty much fact. Unproven but not disputed. Just a matter of time until proven, right? However, I recently started reading a book called "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" - one of those accessible science books - by Michael Brooks. It is, by the way excellent. A very good example of how to do it without dumbing down or over-simplifying, mixing well-chosen metaphors and interesting asides with small doses of hard science (my head started hurting at one point, when he was explaining the maths behind alpha, but it was a brief moment). Anyway, whilst taking us through the mystery of where or what 96% of the Universe is, a personal bomb-shell is dropped: MOND / MOG. That's right: WORLDCAT. Worldcat ate it. The furball will destroy us all. And you thought lolcats were the nadir of humanity......
Seriously though, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or Modified Gravity. Is it just that gravity works differently over large distances? In hindsight, the notion that perhaps science that is hundreds of years old might need tweaking, what with all we've learnt in the meantime, doesn't seem that shocking. And it seems to me to be a. eminently sensible and b. just plain good science to first of all systematically check your assumptions before going off and inventing theoretical exotic particles or forms of mass/ energy to fill in the gaps. But the main thing is that there are alternative theories. Only you'd have no idea, as I had no idea, if you were relying on mainstream TV for your fix.
This is not an attack on the BBC science output. I understand these documentaries generally have an hour-long slot in which to do their things and the necessary pedantry would kill them. However, they're presenting - intentionally or otherwise - one unproven theory as universally accepted principle. I'm to blame for relying on a narrow selection of sources, of course. Though Brooks acknowledges that fashion and publicity can be just as powerful in science as in showbiz. Is there a danger that if one idea becomes the "fashionable" one in the eyes of the wider public, that can create a feedback that would influence scientists' perceptions and presumptions, and affect how research and funding for research are targeted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)