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.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
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)