I have a new post on GraunWatch.
A writer named Emer O'Toole has written a piece for the Guardian claiming that the plays of Shakespeare are little more than an tool of colonial/imperialist control over the world. As I tend to see Shakespeare's plays as having been very central to British culture for centuries, I take issue with her here.
As the owner of the blog says, this isn't necessarily the "Guardian line" on Shakespeare. But I believe this line of thinking is all too common, and needs to be subjected to strong critical analysis wherever possible. Too many people are getting away with some very woolly thinking.
The subject was also discussed on David Thompson's blog (in the comments section of this post). The point was made that education and thought in the UK is being influenced by a strong anti-patriotism - quite common, I think, in the pages of the Guardian and Independent, and in the output of the BBC.
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Friday, 9 December 2011
Cameron and the EU
So today, David Cameron has vetoed an agreement in the EU, and is being accused of having "blocked the treaty". In short, my view is that he did exactly what he had to.
His enemies now scent blood, however. Nick Robinson, of the scrupulously impartial BBC (twas a joke, people) conducted an interview that was simply an attack on the Prime Minister - an attempt to imply that he has shafted the country.
Robinson will perhaps repeat some guff about this being a very serious issue, and needing to grill the prime minister. In actual fact, this has often been the excuse used by him and his colleagues. The BBC need to remember that they are not the party of opposition. Their impartiality credo, if they believe it at all, means standing aloof from party politics and giving both views - once again they are only giving one view. Anyone can see the difference in attitude in their interviews with the PM and the leader of the opposition.
But it is not just party politics the Beeb are playing. Their agenda has been pro-euro, pro-EU for as long as I can remember. Peter Oborne thinks it was true in the 70s for the referendum and decisions that were being made then. It is certainly true now.
Of course Ed Milliband is saying the prime minister got it all wrong. I do understand - believe me - that the opposition exists to provide criticism. But it should be a valid criticism - and I am not sure I know what Milliband would have done differently - does anybody? What would he have done? In essence Milliband is exactly like Cameron was in opposition - an opportunist making the right noises. But it's annoying at such a difficult time for the country - this is rather like joining in another country's aggressive diplomacy against the UK to score political points.
We shall see what Mr Johnson and IDS do next. Cameron must explain clearly (not his strong point I know) what the problems were with the Merkozy proposals
His enemies now scent blood, however. Nick Robinson, of the scrupulously impartial BBC (twas a joke, people) conducted an interview that was simply an attack on the Prime Minister - an attempt to imply that he has shafted the country.
Robinson will perhaps repeat some guff about this being a very serious issue, and needing to grill the prime minister. In actual fact, this has often been the excuse used by him and his colleagues. The BBC need to remember that they are not the party of opposition. Their impartiality credo, if they believe it at all, means standing aloof from party politics and giving both views - once again they are only giving one view. Anyone can see the difference in attitude in their interviews with the PM and the leader of the opposition.
But it is not just party politics the Beeb are playing. Their agenda has been pro-euro, pro-EU for as long as I can remember. Peter Oborne thinks it was true in the 70s for the referendum and decisions that were being made then. It is certainly true now.
Of course Ed Milliband is saying the prime minister got it all wrong. I do understand - believe me - that the opposition exists to provide criticism. But it should be a valid criticism - and I am not sure I know what Milliband would have done differently - does anybody? What would he have done? In essence Milliband is exactly like Cameron was in opposition - an opportunist making the right noises. But it's annoying at such a difficult time for the country - this is rather like joining in another country's aggressive diplomacy against the UK to score political points.
We shall see what Mr Johnson and IDS do next. Cameron must explain clearly (not his strong point I know) what the problems were with the Merkozy proposals
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Nick Cohen, the "women monsterers", and the story of Neil Lyndon
Journalist Nick Cohen has written a blog post entitled "A regiment of women monsterers" on the the Spectator magazine website. Now I find this title to be appalling (and rather disturbing) written English, on the whole, but that's not my main point here.
The "woman monsterers" he is talking about are the commenters and journalists who, he says, hurl verbal abuse at female journalists online and in print.
The example recipients of this behaviour that he lists include Polly Toynbee, Melanie Philips, and Laurie Penny. (I could add that Jan Moir has received some abuse online, which does provide another example)
Now I have seen some criticism of Toynbee, mainly calling her a "champagne socialist" for talking about socialist issues when she has a villa in Tuscany, and there is some dislike of Philips, mainly as an outspoken writer for the Daily Mail, a paper vilified by the liberal left in the UK.
Laurie Penny has certainly been on the wrong end of a lot of criticism, and many jibes of immaturity and self-absorbtion. On the other hand she is someone who gets very excited about revolution, calls Conservatives "hordes of drooling poshos", and can be rather sharp tongued about the male of the species.
Cohen's article does echo what some feminist writers said a month or so ago. My view then has not changed, online debate is very tough on everyone, there is no conspiracy to "silence women" as some implied back then. We'd need to look a bit more carefully into the evidence before jumping to that conclusion. This is one of the difficulties with any debate involving gender at the moment. People with a political agenda one way or another will state their conclusions as established fact before doing any sober analysis, then attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them.
If you are in doubt about whether we do need to look again at evidence for Cohen's conclusions, indeed if you have read his article at all, I would strongly suggest you read the story of Neil Lyndon (here and on wiki)
Lyndon wrote a piece in the Sunday Times 20 years ago, mildly criticising feminism. Efforts were apparently made by female journalists to block publication of his piece. The response in the next week's paper was revealing (quoting from the Guardian link above):
"Looking back at the cuttings, there was not much discussion of the content of his writings, rather it was the size of penis, his ability to attract women and the fragrance of his breath that were called into question. One adjective was so routinely applied to him, you began to wonder if it was part of his name: the Inadequate Neil Lyndon"
The abuse didn't stop there, including physical attacks, further insults and work drying up for him, when he wrote a book on the subject. Lyndon must have been very tough to come through what happened next..
Cohen concludes histirade literary tour-de-force with the following:
"The cases of Penny, Toynbee and Phillips show the hollow-eyed masturbators on the comment threads are not alone. Journalists are more than willing to encourage them."
Now some people might be a touch surprised to find our heroic defender against "vicious denunciations" ( a quote from the article) going on to describe the denunciators as "hollow-eyed masturbators on the comment threads", but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
Please, if you have read Nick Cohen's piece in the Spectator, read the above links too...
The "woman monsterers" he is talking about are the commenters and journalists who, he says, hurl verbal abuse at female journalists online and in print.
The example recipients of this behaviour that he lists include Polly Toynbee, Melanie Philips, and Laurie Penny. (I could add that Jan Moir has received some abuse online, which does provide another example)
Now I have seen some criticism of Toynbee, mainly calling her a "champagne socialist" for talking about socialist issues when she has a villa in Tuscany, and there is some dislike of Philips, mainly as an outspoken writer for the Daily Mail, a paper vilified by the liberal left in the UK.
Laurie Penny has certainly been on the wrong end of a lot of criticism, and many jibes of immaturity and self-absorbtion. On the other hand she is someone who gets very excited about revolution, calls Conservatives "hordes of drooling poshos", and can be rather sharp tongued about the male of the species.
Cohen's article does echo what some feminist writers said a month or so ago. My view then has not changed, online debate is very tough on everyone, there is no conspiracy to "silence women" as some implied back then. We'd need to look a bit more carefully into the evidence before jumping to that conclusion. This is one of the difficulties with any debate involving gender at the moment. People with a political agenda one way or another will state their conclusions as established fact before doing any sober analysis, then attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them.
If you are in doubt about whether we do need to look again at evidence for Cohen's conclusions, indeed if you have read his article at all, I would strongly suggest you read the story of Neil Lyndon (here and on wiki)
Lyndon wrote a piece in the Sunday Times 20 years ago, mildly criticising feminism. Efforts were apparently made by female journalists to block publication of his piece. The response in the next week's paper was revealing (quoting from the Guardian link above):
"Looking back at the cuttings, there was not much discussion of the content of his writings, rather it was the size of penis, his ability to attract women and the fragrance of his breath that were called into question. One adjective was so routinely applied to him, you began to wonder if it was part of his name: the Inadequate Neil Lyndon"
The abuse didn't stop there, including physical attacks, further insults and work drying up for him, when he wrote a book on the subject. Lyndon must have been very tough to come through what happened next..
Cohen concludes his
"The cases of Penny, Toynbee and Phillips show the hollow-eyed masturbators on the comment threads are not alone. Journalists are more than willing to encourage them."
Now some people might be a touch surprised to find our heroic defender against "vicious denunciations" ( a quote from the article) going on to describe the denunciators as "hollow-eyed masturbators on the comment threads", but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
Please, if you have read Nick Cohen's piece in the Spectator, read the above links too...
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Johann Hari's wiki-eidts
For future readers, Hari has very recently handed back his Orwell prize and put an apology in the Independent, which publication rather controversially refuses to relieve him of his employ there. I don't particularly want to make this guy's life even more of a misery, but this is his fault, and more needs to be made clear before we're done with this.
He has, among other things, owned up to making a lot of edits to Wikipedia pretending to be someone else - someone he was at university with. The sheer number of edits is breathtaking, though I suppose we are talking about a decent period of time here.
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. When people try to misuse it to push their own agendas they are basically trying to rewrite history. Almost all of Hari's edits (you can see them listed here) are on Wiki articles relating to either friends or enemies of Hari. There is a preponderance of edits to Richard Littlejohn's wiki entry and associated talk-page. Other pages include Melanie Philips, Polly Toynbee, Tania Gold, Julie Bindel, Francis Wheen, Rob Blackhurst, Mark Steyn ("It is very important to have a criticisms section. This should not have been removed" is Hari's description of one edit). Most prominent of all is Hari's own wiki entry and discussion page (which makes for fascinating reading after his recent admission). No doubt he would like to give his own side of the story, but not doing so under his own name was a mistake.
It is terribly easy to compare versions of pages on wiki to see what edits a user has made. I've done just one so far, but will do more comparisons I imagine, if I have time. Click here to see the page on Niall Fergusson before and after Hari's edits. You will find reams of stuff about his own attacks on Fergusson, and some responses. The entry on historian Andrew Roberts that he edited also seems to contain comments about Hari's criticisms of him. Somebody has rather mischievously added:
"Roberts has vigorously denied Hari's assertions, responding that Hari "must have a secret crush" on him and notes that Hari was stripped of his Orwell Prize for Journalism in July 2011 for unethical journalistic practices"
More edits to this page may follow, one senses.
By all accounts Hari has mis-used wikipedia to speak well of his friends and attack his enemies. He's not the only person doing this with Wiki. Nor the only one trying to write history as he would like to see it (more on this later). But that doesn't mean it is ok. And, again, all under a false name.
By the looks of some of the discussion pages, some people correctly guessed the identity of this wiki account. I wonder if they then tracked down other posts by him and endeavoured to correct his travesties. Rather hard work, considering the number of edits to go through. But I guess quite a few people will have been aware of something like this going on with regard to individual Wiki-pages. Without some pressure from them I wonder if he would have owned up to this.
Read more on his wiki-editing here.
He has, among other things, owned up to making a lot of edits to Wikipedia pretending to be someone else - someone he was at university with. The sheer number of edits is breathtaking, though I suppose we are talking about a decent period of time here.
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. When people try to misuse it to push their own agendas they are basically trying to rewrite history. Almost all of Hari's edits (you can see them listed here) are on Wiki articles relating to either friends or enemies of Hari. There is a preponderance of edits to Richard Littlejohn's wiki entry and associated talk-page. Other pages include Melanie Philips, Polly Toynbee, Tania Gold, Julie Bindel, Francis Wheen, Rob Blackhurst, Mark Steyn ("It is very important to have a criticisms section. This should not have been removed" is Hari's description of one edit). Most prominent of all is Hari's own wiki entry and discussion page (which makes for fascinating reading after his recent admission). No doubt he would like to give his own side of the story, but not doing so under his own name was a mistake.
It is terribly easy to compare versions of pages on wiki to see what edits a user has made. I've done just one so far, but will do more comparisons I imagine, if I have time. Click here to see the page on Niall Fergusson before and after Hari's edits. You will find reams of stuff about his own attacks on Fergusson, and some responses. The entry on historian Andrew Roberts that he edited also seems to contain comments about Hari's criticisms of him. Somebody has rather mischievously added:
"Roberts has vigorously denied Hari's assertions, responding that Hari "must have a secret crush" on him and notes that Hari was stripped of his Orwell Prize for Journalism in July 2011 for unethical journalistic practices"
More edits to this page may follow, one senses.
By all accounts Hari has mis-used wikipedia to speak well of his friends and attack his enemies. He's not the only person doing this with Wiki. Nor the only one trying to write history as he would like to see it (more on this later). But that doesn't mean it is ok. And, again, all under a false name.
By the looks of some of the discussion pages, some people correctly guessed the identity of this wiki account. I wonder if they then tracked down other posts by him and endeavoured to correct his travesties. Rather hard work, considering the number of edits to go through. But I guess quite a few people will have been aware of something like this going on with regard to individual Wiki-pages. Without some pressure from them I wonder if he would have owned up to this.
Read more on his wiki-editing here.
Thursday, 8 September 2011
BBC bias
Even the BBC themselves have reported this story.
David Amess has made (ahem) amess of this by complaining about female newsreaders "smiling" when reporting serious issues. This is hardly going to help his argument, as much will be made of him being rather out-of-date etc.
It needs to be said again, however that he is absolutely right about the everything else he says. The BBC is part of a group that (whilst most of them are probably not anti-semitic) talks as though Israel is a fascist or apartheid state. This is nonsense. To understand Israel it is simply necessary to imagine the level of security you'd need trying to run a small democracy in the middle of about 10 countries sworn to destroy you*. The BBC should report this in a more balanced fashion.
The BBC also takes a strong line on gender politics, which is very nicey-nice of them, very much the moral high-ground amongst some people. It is however a matter of politics, not of fact, and BBC employees with their customary cynicism about politicians would do well to realise that most feminist writers and activists are in the same game, just on a different side. They use the same methods of propaganda, and have the same cavalier treatment of facts and research, using them only when they assist the cause.
The BBC is consistantly critical of the Conservatives, in or out of government. BBC members are disgustingly unperturbed about this. They really do seem to think they are balanced, even when it is clear that their main criticisms of Labour come when they seem to be moving to the centre (or right). They make a great claim to impartiality, but in practice they have given up even trying to be impartial - they have a strong line on most things. Look at the public spending "cuts", the recent riots in London. They really thing parroting the Guardian is a 'balanced' view...
A huge number of people listen t the BBC, and I fear too many believe that it gives 'the balanced view'. Not true. The bias is clear in their news AND in their drama (which was once the envy of the world - now it's worth nothing). They are misusing taxpayers money. It is entirely right that attention should be paid to their vaunted impartiality, and whether they are fullfilling that promise.
* see this artcle on Archbishop Cranmer's blog
David Amess has made (ahem) amess of this by complaining about female newsreaders "smiling" when reporting serious issues. This is hardly going to help his argument, as much will be made of him being rather out-of-date etc.
It needs to be said again, however that he is absolutely right about the everything else he says. The BBC is part of a group that (whilst most of them are probably not anti-semitic) talks as though Israel is a fascist or apartheid state. This is nonsense. To understand Israel it is simply necessary to imagine the level of security you'd need trying to run a small democracy in the middle of about 10 countries sworn to destroy you*. The BBC should report this in a more balanced fashion.
The BBC also takes a strong line on gender politics, which is very nicey-nice of them, very much the moral high-ground amongst some people. It is however a matter of politics, not of fact, and BBC employees with their customary cynicism about politicians would do well to realise that most feminist writers and activists are in the same game, just on a different side. They use the same methods of propaganda, and have the same cavalier treatment of facts and research, using them only when they assist the cause.
The BBC is consistantly critical of the Conservatives, in or out of government. BBC members are disgustingly unperturbed about this. They really do seem to think they are balanced, even when it is clear that their main criticisms of Labour come when they seem to be moving to the centre (or right). They make a great claim to impartiality, but in practice they have given up even trying to be impartial - they have a strong line on most things. Look at the public spending "cuts", the recent riots in London. They really thing parroting the Guardian is a 'balanced' view...
A huge number of people listen t the BBC, and I fear too many believe that it gives 'the balanced view'. Not true. The bias is clear in their news AND in their drama (which was once the envy of the world - now it's worth nothing). They are misusing taxpayers money. It is entirely right that attention should be paid to their vaunted impartiality, and whether they are fullfilling that promise.
* see this artcle on Archbishop Cranmer's blog
Sunday, 14 August 2011
more pontificating on the riots
I'm so enamoured of yet another of my comments (in a debate with another commenter in a thread on David Starkey's remarks) that I'm going to quote myself a third time. Here it is:
"tbngu:
people have been trying to make much of links between the looting and banks, MPs expenses etc. I have to say this link is extremely tenuous.
Bankers didn't just become selfish in the last 30 years. Capitalism is a kind of outlet for people's need for advancement/aspiration, which Guardian readers will classify as pure greed. It's always been there.
I think the mindset and the actions of looters smashing windows, and rioters confronting police, burning down businesses and homes, running over people who got in their way etc, is wholly different
And I'm sorry, but if women were anywhere NEAR 50% of those causing trouble, I'll be very surprised indeed. And we will see, shan't we, who the largest group of rioters were..
We still need to find out more about who all these criminals were (and hasn't everyone been quick to explain this with their pet political theory before we knew who was rioting?). But I still believe we need to address gang culture and the way boys are brought to maturity in this country.
The liberal left avoid this issue every time it comes up. They are so obsessed with their very dubious ideas world that they are in danger of letting down a whole generation of young men who are becoming more criminal, more suicidal, less successful in education etcetc
I do think that our collective opinions of politicians, the rich, and journalists has taken a battering. It could well be part of the attitude towards authority that led to this. But only part. People who want to say it is the whole problem are just too enamoured of their Guardian-inspired theories and not trying hard enough to look at things objectively.
re: The Apprentice - it does seem a rather different style of TV to the Generation game, I grant you! You need to stop oversimplifying things. The "selfishness" is part of changes to society that have come a long way since we did things "for King and country", and aren't easily undone. It will be a complex business trying to give this country a soul again, I wouldn't look for the answers in the Guardian or Mail or any other paper if I were you..."
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Why we should at least listen to David Starkey...
An expanded version of my comment on the biassedBbC website about David Starkey's comments on Newsnight yesterday (12th August 2011)
"David Starkey did phrase his comments in a slightly inflammatory way - he focused on one type of "Black Culture", and I guess he could have said Gang culture or referred to HipHop music without saying Black. He was trying to provoke debate, I guess.
He also was saying something that we don't face up to. Young boys in this country apparently don't see someone like Richard Branson as a role model, or Stephen Hawking or Andrew Wiles. Many seem to look to this gang/drugs/fighting culture as the only way of being a man. This culture celebrates the criminal. It is negative, violent, anti-education, anti-authority, and anti-British.
At the same time the Beeb, Guardian, and others have been so exercised trying to highlight how girls and women are achieving more and more that they have inadvertently sidelined boys and their future. I think it's uncontroversial that perceptions of gender roles have changed. By all means celebrate the successes of women, but I wonder if we've lost track of what we think masculinity should be.
Being a 'man' seems to have too many negative connotations to people these days. Yet all the men haven't gone away. They feel powerless and angry. I believe that this is one (just one!) cause of the riots and looting. We have let down a generation of boys, who have turned to violence. On both the left and the right people are angrily trying to blame the other side for the cultural mess that is behind the riots.
Starkey was interrupted at every sentence he tried to say. The interviewer didn't like what he was saying and didn't give him a chance to speak. Both the other interviewees seemed to be there to give different shades of views the Guardian might find acceptable."
Friday, 12 August 2011
Peter Oborne in the Telegraph - expenses misuse and rioting ?
Peter Oborne has written a passionate piece about the looters and saying, amongst other things, that he can find little ethical difference between the looters and the MPs implicated in the expense 'scandal'. I wrote the following comment which has been lost in 3000 others.
The article has attracted great popularity in Twitter, which is something of a leftist stronghold these days. Guardian readers have popped by to register their astonished delight. It's a good piece of work, but I don't really agree with it. Here is my comment:
"I don't agree at all that there is no ethical difference between rioters/looters, and the expenses fiasco. Guardian readers and tweeters love this piece - I don't
I think there was a feeling of "bending the rules" and "everyone's at it" for the MPs. Whereas the looters' and rioters actions contained a good deal of anarchic and personal malice, also disrespect for property, law, and the right to do business, disrespect for peace and order, and joyfully creating fear.
Also the mindset of the looters was quite different, this has all got to count for something.
I do agree that the atmosphere of sleaze and corruption with which the public now view politicians and journalists, due to many stories, and partly the expenses row, has led to some of the disrespect for the law, authority, and the 'establishment' that led to this criminality.
But many other things did too, the lack of good male role models (not just fathers, who have been legally discriminated against, but we havent given boys a way forward), knowledge that they wouldn't go to prison etcetc"
The article has attracted great popularity in Twitter, which is something of a leftist stronghold these days. Guardian readers have popped by to register their astonished delight. It's a good piece of work, but I don't really agree with it. Here is my comment:
"I don't agree at all that there is no ethical difference between rioters/looters, and the expenses fiasco. Guardian readers and tweeters love this piece - I don't
I think there was a feeling of "bending the rules" and "everyone's at it" for the MPs. Whereas the looters' and rioters actions contained a good deal of anarchic and personal malice, also disrespect for property, law, and the right to do business, disrespect for peace and order, and joyfully creating fear.
Also the mindset of the looters was quite different, this has all got to count for something.
I do agree that the atmosphere of sleaze and corruption with which the public now view politicians and journalists, due to many stories, and partly the expenses row, has led to some of the disrespect for the law, authority, and the 'establishment' that led to this criminality.
But many other things did too, the lack of good male role models (not just fathers, who have been legally discriminated against, but we havent given boys a way forward), knowledge that they wouldn't go to prison etcetc"
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
A celebrity interviewer on celebrity interviewing
There was a wonderful piece in the Times newspaper on the 21st of July. It's reprinted here, and I thought was worthy of some note.
The article is more a controlled shout of rage than any sort of essay. It's written by someone who evidently made and still makes their crust conducting these types of interview, who needs an outlet to vent some job-dissatisfaction, under the pseudonym Victoria Smith.
She is, it seems, sick and tired of the lack of spontanaeity and autonomy that her job has come to entail, one that either used to be more fun, or to which she looked forward to with intense excitement.
That excitement has worn off, leaving a bleak viewpoint on stars and their world.
"In a world of boundless PR power, where small, screechy women in Tinseltown office blocks decide exactly what will be written about their clients in UK newspapers, the star interview is .. a meaningless joke."
In movies like Notting Hill we get a view of what these interviews are like, but..
They don’t mention that personal publicists, direct from LA, often sit in on interviews, just behind your shoulder and in their client’s eye-line, waiting to pounce on any inappropriate question (ie, one that doesn’t begin with “So tell me Angelina, what was it like working with . . .”)
That reminds me of the stupifying boredom of watching the extra features in a DVD. Precious wasted hours of interviews with even the most talented of actors - mindful of keeping their career alive - saying how great it was to work with [insert famous director's first name]. This is what made the suggestion so entertaining that Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford did the most ordinary thing for two strong personalities to do - not get on very well, supposedly - when making the scifi masterpiece Blade Runner.
When himself asked this (in an interview that didn't fit the stereotype given by last weeks Times article) Ford answered tactfully and with some common-sense that in any job you run into difficult working relationships.
All true, and celebrities will be told by their publicists that they must show their 'best side'*, but they truly seem to be hiding their personalities in the process, hiding - you would think - the best and only thing they have in the world. But the film industry doesn't seem to work like that.
* see this gruesome news item and interview with Paris Hilton for a celebrity's worst nightmare, with some journos apparently out to get her.
The article is more a controlled shout of rage than any sort of essay. It's written by someone who evidently made and still makes their crust conducting these types of interview, who needs an outlet to vent some job-dissatisfaction, under the pseudonym Victoria Smith.
She is, it seems, sick and tired of the lack of spontanaeity and autonomy that her job has come to entail, one that either used to be more fun, or to which she looked forward to with intense excitement.
That excitement has worn off, leaving a bleak viewpoint on stars and their world.
"In a world of boundless PR power, where small, screechy women in Tinseltown office blocks decide exactly what will be written about their clients in UK newspapers, the star interview is .. a meaningless joke."
In movies like Notting Hill we get a view of what these interviews are like, but..
They don’t mention that personal publicists, direct from LA, often sit in on interviews, just behind your shoulder and in their client’s eye-line, waiting to pounce on any inappropriate question (ie, one that doesn’t begin with “So tell me Angelina, what was it like working with . . .”)
That reminds me of the stupifying boredom of watching the extra features in a DVD. Precious wasted hours of interviews with even the most talented of actors - mindful of keeping their career alive - saying how great it was to work with [insert famous director's first name]. This is what made the suggestion so entertaining that Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford did the most ordinary thing for two strong personalities to do - not get on very well, supposedly - when making the scifi masterpiece Blade Runner.
When himself asked this (in an interview that didn't fit the stereotype given by last weeks Times article) Ford answered tactfully and with some common-sense that in any job you run into difficult working relationships.
All true, and celebrities will be told by their publicists that they must show their 'best side'*, but they truly seem to be hiding their personalities in the process, hiding - you would think - the best and only thing they have in the world. But the film industry doesn't seem to work like that.
* see this gruesome news item and interview with Paris Hilton for a celebrity's worst nightmare, with some journos apparently out to get her.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Sharon Osbourne: "I do think it’s quite fabulous"
What does Sharon Osbourne reportedly think is fabulous?
It's the story of a "California woman accused of cutting of her husband’s private part and disposing of it in a particularly gruesome way after he asked for a divorce"
Fabulous eh? If you say so. And if a man mutilated a woman in some way would that be fabulous too? Is someone going to convolutedly argue that while (for example) rape is an evil crime, mutilating a man's sexual organs is just fine!
The audience apparently shared the joke
It's the story of a "California woman accused of cutting of her husband’s private part and disposing of it in a particularly gruesome way after he asked for a divorce"
Fabulous eh? If you say so. And if a man mutilated a woman in some way would that be fabulous too? Is someone going to convolutedly argue that while (for example) rape is an evil crime, mutilating a man's sexual organs is just fine!
The audience apparently shared the joke
Thursday, 21 July 2011
BBC on the Murdoch story
The BBC have been focusing on this story since it broke, to the exclusion of all else in the news. I feel tired of saying this - but it has to be said again:
a) The BBC's claims to 'impartiality' are a joke,
b) All news sources make decisions about what to print or broadcast. These will necessarily be a kind of bias, but what we have here is a battle between news giants, being conducted at the expense of bringing the public news about Libya, Greece, problems with the Euro etc.
Here is one of many excellent posts on the biased-BBC blog showing how this story of questionable importance is attracting several times as much space and time fro the BBC as all other issues put together. And over and over, BBC journalists are using the story to try and put the Prime Minister's judgement into doubt, because of their own political leanings
This is irresponsible reporting and editing. People believe the BBC is impartial (including some who work for the organisation, bizarrely), as it has a written obligation to try to be.
In fact exactly the opposite is the case, and its entire news agenda has been dominated by a a story fuelled by inter-journalistic rivalry and schadenfreude.
The Murdoch papers are running scared - the Telegraph is also run by anti-Murdoch elements (by being successful and ruthless, he's just made too many enemies) and are not doing enough - apart from an excellent piece by Janet Daley
Spread the word. Everyone needs to understand this.
a) The BBC's claims to 'impartiality' are a joke,
b) All news sources make decisions about what to print or broadcast. These will necessarily be a kind of bias, but what we have here is a battle between news giants, being conducted at the expense of bringing the public news about Libya, Greece, problems with the Euro etc.
Here is one of many excellent posts on the biased-BBC blog showing how this story of questionable importance is attracting several times as much space and time fro the BBC as all other issues put together. And over and over, BBC journalists are using the story to try and put the Prime Minister's judgement into doubt, because of their own political leanings
This is irresponsible reporting and editing. People believe the BBC is impartial (including some who work for the organisation, bizarrely), as it has a written obligation to try to be.
In fact exactly the opposite is the case, and its entire news agenda has been dominated by a a story fuelled by inter-journalistic rivalry and schadenfreude.
The Murdoch papers are running scared - the Telegraph is also run by anti-Murdoch elements (by being successful and ruthless, he's just made too many enemies) and are not doing enough - apart from an excellent piece by Janet Daley
Spread the word. Everyone needs to understand this.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Will Self attracting amusement again
A ludicrous piece of writing appeared in the Guardian very recently written by Mr Will Self. It is his commentary on the closure of the News of the World and one of such pretentiousness that I almost achieved Nirvana reading it. At least I was aware of being on quite a different level of consciousness after reading it, to the one I started off with before I was unsuspectingly drawn to this abomination.
The subtitle of the piece will give you a clue:
"We are in a strange interregnum of titillation between cultural hegemonies, before familiar hierarchies appear online"
"key to an understanding of how this interregnum is eating holes in the British social fabric"
Which led the way for my personal favourite from the 100s of bewildered comments. This from someone calling himself DannyKen:
"Blimey, Will. You don't so much mix your metaphors as put them in a blender"
I too commented on the images this put in my head. Someone is having a laugh here, surely?
The subtitle of the piece will give you a clue:
"We are in a strange interregnum of titillation between cultural hegemonies, before familiar hierarchies appear online"
Now I quote the late, great George Carlin here: "that is what is known as being STUNNINGLY, EMBARASSINGLY full of s**t". There's plenty of it, too :) Here is some more
"key to an understanding of how this interregnum is eating holes in the British social fabric"
Which led the way for my personal favourite from the 100s of bewildered comments. This from someone calling himself DannyKen:
"Blimey, Will. You don't so much mix your metaphors as put them in a blender"
I too commented on the images this put in my head. Someone is having a laugh here, surely?
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Poor old Johann Hari
...so it seems to me. Guido Fawkes has really got stuck in - as is his wont*. He's not the only one. British journalism does not seem to be replete with the milk of human kindness...**
I suppose we look back with rose-tinted spectacles at the greatness of George Orwell. Maybe when our descendants look back at this era with the telescopic view of 100 years in the future, another figure will seem equally great to them. Nevertheless, I doubt any of the recipients of the prize named after him will be that figure (Polly Toynbee is one who comes to mind, how did she get the prize? She and Laurie Penny came to Hari's defence yesterday. Not a roll-call of my favourite journalists, I'm afraid)
There's a good quote here, from Splintered Sunrise, on the whole business:
*though I do look at Guido's blog fairly regularly to er..keep an eye on things
**I'm not sure about the quality of writing there :S
I suppose we look back with rose-tinted spectacles at the greatness of George Orwell. Maybe when our descendants look back at this era with the telescopic view of 100 years in the future, another figure will seem equally great to them. Nevertheless, I doubt any of the recipients of the prize named after him will be that figure (Polly Toynbee is one who comes to mind, how did she get the prize? She and Laurie Penny came to Hari's defence yesterday. Not a roll-call of my favourite journalists, I'm afraid)
There's a good quote here, from Splintered Sunrise, on the whole business:
Which is not to say (and I’m trying to be scrupulously fair here) that Toni Negri or Malalai Joya might not have said something to Hari similar to what he quoted – he’d simply lifted his quotes from elsewhere because they evidently read better than what he had on tape. Which, as it happens, is the explanation given by Hari himself in his remarkably pompous blog post (“intellectual portraiture”, forsooth) owning up to this sharp practiceIt's a decent, and I think balanced, post to read about the whole business
*though I do look at Guido's blog fairly regularly to er..keep an eye on things
**I'm not sure about the quality of writing there :S
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)