COLLECTED VOICES

youtube politics: why gordon brown just doesn't get it

2008-08-06T22:51:00.001+01:00

When Gordon Brown swept into office on a tide of popular relief at the exit of Tony Blair last year, he took the predictably trendy step of setting up a 10 Downing Street youtube channel.

This move was sold as a sign of a new politics, where politicians would reach out and engage with voters, particularly those hard-to-reach 18-30 year olds. Unfortunately it seems as though the same old top-down politics has been replicated in a new medium.

My friend Anita, in her role as an Amnesty International intern, posted a question for Gordon on the issue of detention without charge (the limit was recently raised to a staggering 6 weeks in the UK).

So far, so good. A young voter gets the chance to talk directly to the Prime Minister about an issue of great national importance. Unfortunately that's where this promising example of open democracy ends. Take a look at Brown's response, and tell me how it is different to any standard press-conference spiel:

Worst of all, Gordon commits the ultimate web-2.0 crime: the comments facility on the video is disabled. The Prime Minister speaks, we listen, and that's the end of it. All of the potential of the youtube as an accessible forum for debate has been ignored.

I'm don't expect Gordon to spend all day engaging in video flame-wars, but he should at least let the youtube community comment on his video!

Of course, Brown's censorship of his own channel won't stop anyone posting videos in response, or prevent debate elsewhere on the net about his civil liberties record, but it does demonstrate his fundamental misunderstanding of the structure and appeal of the internet.

I'm quite a fan of Gordon Brown, but given recent speculation about his position in the party, and the Labour party's standing in the country it is interesting to note that both David Miliband and David Cameron do have comments enabled on their personal blogs. Their sites are hardly hot-beds of a new democratic order, but they do suggest that it is too early to discount the potential of the internet to have a significant impact on political life. The real question is whether a truly interactive web-relationship with our democratic representatives is possible, how long it will take, and what impact it will have. That's something no-one has the answer to yet.

if you're tired of london, you're tired of... the news?

2008-06-09T18:14:00.001+01:00

Surprise surprise, the UK media are unrelentingly London-centric - today the mediaguardian has reported that only two BBC staff members have applied to relocated to the corporation's new centre in Manchester. The only remarkable thing about the story seems to be that the London-based paper formerly known as the Manchester Guardian, thinks that it is newsworthy at all. ITV can't even manage to commission the minimum legal requirement of programming from the regions. Even legislation can't thwart London's dominance!

Apparently, according to the IPPR, the only place in the UK where you won't be subjected to unrelenting metropolitan media bias is Scotland, where apparently you won't hear any news that comes from south of the border.

So, is the media governed with an iron fist from within the citadel of the M25, or is the nation's news gathering dangerously fragmented? I have more sympathy with the first theory.

That the IPPR should view the Scottish case as a problem is strange, for it seems to me to be a shining example of local media in action. With their devolved government and thriving newspaper sector, the Scots are in a better position to be informed and engaged in the political issues affecting them than their English sisters. If this means that they don't know the scoop on the latest English crime statistics, or educational policy changes, then does that really matter? After all, no-one seems to mind that the UK media almost never report the domestic politics of our European neighbours.

In any case, the IPPR focus on newspapers (the primary news source for about a dozen people these days), is woefully outdated.

We should celebrate the availability of local news sources, while recognising that they do not play an exclusive role in the news-consumption habits of most people.

Boyzone's Triumphant Return: A Fan's Review

2008-05-31T21:31:00.001+01:00

OK, so the title of their comeback tour, 'Boyzone: Back Again... No Matter What', did not bode well. Rather than 'Back By Popular Demand' there was an apologetic tone that suggested they weren't confident that their return would be welcomed.

However their gig at the Millennium Dome last night (I refuse to call it the O2 - I dread the day when all London's buildings are named after corporations) proved that they had nothing to worry about.

Now, as a veteran of their 90s tours, I can say that according to any standard their show is better than anything they've put on before. Their concerts always used to be a little slapdash, but they've clearly put a lot of time, effort and money into this venture.

The audience was treated to pyrotechnics, glistening abs, and a stage that by turns span, flew, and dropped away.

Of course I'm no neutral observer: I was there to spend a couple of hours regressing into naive teenage hysteria, and to see the band that was such an important part of my awkward adolescent years. For any Boyzone fan it was a delight to see the band so clearly enjoying being on stage, especially compared with their obvious boredom during the dying months before their split.

I also enjoyed the fact that the concert wasn't just the Ronan show - all of the band got their chance in the spotlight, without it ever feeling forced - No more Good Conversation (you know what I'm talking about Boyzone fans). They were always more than the sum of their parts, a fact that was proved by Ronan's lacklustre solo career. The biggest surprise was Shane Lynch singing Michael Jackson's Bad - where that voice came from I have no idea, but I liked it! Also impressive was Mike's turn on the piano during words. They've all really upped their game.

Highlights were the retro gym rendering of When the Going Gets Tough (pictured above for your enjoyment), their first performance of And I, and Stephen Gately's irrepressible enthusiasm.

They also unveiled their new single Can't Stop Thinking About You, an excerpt of which I managed to shakily record (I think it'll demonstrate Stephen's aforementioned performance zeal). It's catchy I think:

Only two minor complaints: Father and Son was accompanied by a really creepy animation, and they didn't play either of their best up-tempo tracks - So Good, and Together - the latter being particularly fitting for a reunion tour. Other than that, I'm looking forward to seeing the show again later in the tour: after eight years of absence once just isn't enough!

kate s-b

didn't he do well? happy birthday brucie

2008-02-24T21:54:00.001Z

It was a strange experience watching the BBC's tribute to an 80 year old Bruce Forsyth this evening.

The programme was a kind of one-off variety show version of This is Your Life, complete with singing, dancing, and cake-decorating contests.

(Unfortunately Vernon Kay made an appearance)

Self-indulgent it might have been, but it was nice to see the life of a national treasure celebrated while he's alive, rather than in a glowing obituary that he'll never get to see.

My personal favourite Brucie moment is his small role in the vastly underrated Disney film Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

Still, what was brought home was that Bruce Forsyth's era of personalities who entertain a nation of millions for decades, is nearing its end. And that's no bad thing - yes, tens of millions of people tuned in to Sunday Night at the Palladium, but that's because there was literally nothing else on TV.

So yes, celebrate Brucie's life in entertainment, but ditch the rose-tinted spectacles and be glad that we can watch vintage episodes of Play Your Cards Right, or chose to watch the latest series of Curb Your Enthusiasm on cable TV, or download a classic Louis Theroux doco.

An open question is that of the future fate of the all-round singing, dancing entertainer in the Brucie mould. Is there a space for the next Brucie on youtube? Or are we in an era of niche entertainers?

kate s-b

what if... Obama is Blair?

2008-02-24T13:08:00.001Z

Watching Obama at a rally on TV today, an inexplicable wave of understanding swept over me.

'Oh my god', I thought, 'He's Tony Blair!'

I don't know where this thought came from - I'll admit it was purely gut instinct.

When I started thinking about it, though, I realised it isn't so far fetched. Consider the evidence -

A moribund, deeply unpopular government, racked by sleaze allegations in power (George W. Bush/ The Conservative Party).

A new, inspiring leader emerges onto the national political scene in the space of just a few years. He's relatively young and good looking (for a politician), with an ear-to-ear grin, and for the first time people have hope that things can be better.

He makes great speeches (Hope! Yes, We Can!/ Education, Education, Education), but the policies are rather thin on the ground.

Obama is often compared to Kennedy, but JFK was shot before he could disappoint anyone. That's why he could remain a symbol of hope and optimism in popular culture. Blair might be a better point of comparison with Obama, because in his case we know how the story of hope ended.

Ten years ago, crowds used to cheer for Tony Blair, and reach out in the hope of shaking his hand. Now, after numerous broken promises, and a bloody war in Iraq, the UK is glad to be rid of him, and active campaigns are in motion to prevent him becoming EU President.

I don't want to write Obama off; I hope he is everything that he appears to be.

However, even if he does have the potential to change America for the better, he should be wary of setting himself up for failure by raising hopes to such a fever pitch. Blair recently admitted that his government had no hope of meeting the high expectations raised in 1997, and a British Prime Minister has much more personal power than an American President can ever hope to wield, given the fragmented nature of the US political system.

So, I guess my point is: don't trust politicians. Hardly revolutionary, but in the midst of the Obama whirlwind, perhaps worth remembering.

kate s-b

why hillary clinton is courtney love

2008-02-08T13:37:00.001Z

A recurring concern in the current Presidential race has been what successive Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Presidencies would mean for American democracy.

But those making this point seem to forget that there is a fundamental difference between being someone's child, and being their partner.

Is it any surprise that two young, talented, ambitious people should be attracted to each other in their twenties and then both go on to have great success in their forties and fifties? It shouldn't be, but when this happens, the woman in the partnership is often singled out for vitriolic abuse, and her success is deemed to be based solely on the talents of her husband.

Such 'power couples' include John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, and Tony Blair and Cherie Booth.

The women in these couples have not generally been praised for their glass-ceiling-busting achievements in the male-dominated worlds of Rock music, Art, Politics, and Law. Instead they've become public hate figures, and are also often blamed for the problems, or even the deaths of their husbands!

Of course, dynasties such as the Bushes, or the Bhuttos in Pakistan, pose a threat to democracy, social mobility and meritocracy. George W was an alcoholic, drink-driving C-student who wouldn't have a shot and the country's highest office if he'd been from Anywhere USA. But this shouldn't be confused with young women who climb the ladder on their own merits, and just happen to be married to successful men.

kate sb

If you enjoyed this, you might also like:

not for girls: how teachers are limiting horizons

humourless feminists

crush on obama

the union forever? hot air in oxford

2007-11-26T18:03:00.001Z

Some interesting debate has been bubbling away about tonight's debate at the Oxford Union. Racist politician Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving are in the line up for a debate about free speech.

I paid over a hundred quid for membership to the Union and all I got was a bent spoon from Uri Gellar (I think he mistook my hysterical laughter at his act for awe), so I have sympathy with those who urge us not to give the institution so much respect and attention. As Charlie Beckett has pointed out, it is far from the distinguished forum of national debate that it claims to be. It is a school for future MPs, CEOs and professional gas-bags.

In principle I agree with the liberal defenders of the event, but I think many are missing an important part of this particular case: how do we have a useful and enlightening debate about free speech?

The crux of the issue is the appropriate limits to free speech, particularly when we find what is said abhorrent. But Griffin and Irving don't believe that their views are unacceptable, so they won't be engaged with the fundamental question that needs tackling. No doubt the debate will descend into acrimony, with them playing the victim and defending their oddball views.

To really address the issue of free speech, I'd like to hear intelligent speakers who are engaged with the issue. Perhaps the defense lawyer for the 'lyrical terrorist' who was recently convicted for owning violent and subversive manuals and poetry, or a leading liberal thinker like Alan Ryan or Nancy Rosenblum.

There might be some sort of a case for inviting Griffin to a debate about immigration, or Irving to a debate about the nature of historical enquiry, but I don't see that they have very much at all to contribute about the nature of free speech in a modern democracy.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

not for girls: how teachers are limiting horizons

phooey to boris johnson

why today is just like yesterday

boyzone: together, they're better by far

2007-11-23T14:23:00.001Z

I couldn't let Boyzone's reunion last Friday night, or their upcoming tour pass without comment. They were my personal teenage obsession for at least five years, and while I can now look back rather more objectively on the quality of their output, their connection to those formative years of my life means that I can't wait to get to Wembley and see them perform.

Plus, their shoddiness was always part of the charm for me.

Anyway, with the awareness that not everyone shares my irrational love for the Dublin quintet, I've posted a video that the most hardened pop-cynic will revel in. Even more hysterical than the dancing is the fact that when asked where he comes from on a national TV show, Stephen Gately gives his street name!

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

the spice girls reunion: why it will flop

britney's comeback

this ain't a scene it's a goddam marketplace

feeling good about: thinking allowed

2007-11-15T14:54:00.001Z

It is all too easy to use a blog to criticise, moan and grumble, so here's introducing an occasional new series called 'feeling good about...' In which we lavish (almost) unconditional praise on our favourite things.

To start the ball rolling, one of my favourite new finds during the past year has been Thinking Allowed, BBC Radio 4's 'social science' programme.

It is actually far broader and more accessible than the academic description suggests, and covers everything from media analysis, to policy discussion, and happiness and well-being. The latest episode covered suicide bombing as a social phenomenon, and the changing nature of luxury brands.

Each subject handled with intelligence and charm by the extremely likeable presenter Laurie Taylor, who has a voice that is a cross between George from Rainbow and warm honey. Like the best Radio 4 programmes it is informative without ever talking down to you.

Given its scheduling (4pm Wednesdays) it is little known or talked about, but everyone who is fortunate enough to stumble across it seems to fall in love with it. Hopefully its availablity as a podcast (via itunes and the bbc website) will bring it to a wider audience.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

dick and dom: the saviours of radio one

vegetarian individualism and community values: a necessary trade-off?

are they terrorists? a response to steven levitt

gemma jones in spooks

2007-11-12T11:36:00.001Z

Spooks is one of lamentably few good British TV drama series airing at the moment (though even the American networks aren't performing to their usual high standards of late).

Not only does Spooks have consistently high production values, it combines tight plotting and suspense with characters we really care about.

Even better, recent episodes have seen the introduction of Connie James, played by Gemma Jones.

How fantastic to see an older woman portrayed as heroic, witty and independent in a mainstream drama.

More stereotype-busting characters like this please!

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

over and out: voice overs in tv dramas

what makes a real family

faking it: how rdf killed genre television and ate its babies

best of the week: stuart jeffries' hatchet job on Boris

2007-11-09T13:04:00.001Z

The funniest bad review I've read in quite a while

Congratulations to Stuart Jeffries for being one of the few writers who sees through the 'charms' of Boris Johnson.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

phooey to boris

blog fiction: is blogging the future of storytelling?

sunday times style magazine: i love the smell of money in the morning

baby steps: why tv hasn't harnessed the power of the social web

2007-11-08T16:21:00.001Z

Over the last year or so, TV development teams have been panicking about how to tap into the popularity of facebook, myspace and youtube. After all, this is where young people are spending their time, preferring the internet to the passive experience of watching TV.

Unfortunately most of the attempts to develop 360 formats (as they have become known) rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the appeal of the social web. Almost as bad, in their rush to integrate online and broadcast technologies, TV execs are forgetting their strengths as professional programme makers.

A good example is Lily Allen's new BBC3 format, described in today's Media Guardian:

"BBC3 is grooming singer Lily Allen as one of its key faces after signing her up to front an entertainment show.

Lily Allen and Friends, which is set to air early next year, will be based on the social networking phenomenon that helped launch her career.

Viewers will shape the show online by becoming her virtual friends and contributing to topical discussions, putting questions to guests and even presenting parts of the show."

TV commissioners should not forget that what draws people to TV shows is professional casting, editing and formatting. After all, if you want to watch niche amateur experimentation you can find it on youtube, if you want to engage in topical discussion, you can do it on salon.com, and if you want virtual friends, you can collect them on facebook. Do I want to go on Lily's website to discover new bands, and present part of her TV show? No - those functions are already provided far better elsewhere online, and TV shows will find it almost impossible to compete.

I still think that the greatest innovations in TV will come from new technologies. However, such progress will only come when producers start inventing amazing websites (with the potential for TV spin offs), rather than tagging poor imitations of successful websites onto old TV formats. What draws people to social media is that it offers them something genuinely useful, whether it be the ability to make friends, speak to the world, or buy and sell.

Imagine, for example that a bright spark at the BBC comes up with the idea for a website called 'Friends Reunited' - a website where we allow anyone to find their old school friends. The website is launched, and is immediately flooded with new members, keen to stroll down memory lane. But it doesn't stop there - because in making the website the BBC has created a treasure trove of great TV and radio content. Cameras can follow old high school sweet hearts who are reuniting for the first time, and they can invite a celebrity to embark on their own journey using the website site in front of the cameras, as a new way to do a celebrity biography...

Of course, the concept of Friends Reunited has been and gone, but it seems to me that this is the approach that TV people should be taking. They should create websites that people genuinely want to use - by no means an easy proposition, but certainly a creatively and financially lucrative one.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

blog fiction: is blogging the future of storytelling?

throw the (face)book at them

faking it: how rdf killed genre television and ate its babies

the spice girls reunion: why it will flop

2007-11-05T12:37:00.001Z

With the risk that always comes with making a prediction in public, I will stick my neck out and predict that the upcoming Spice Girls comeback onslaught will be a damp squib.

The first clue came with the pictures from their reunion announcement. Four of the group were dressed almost identically in black body-con outfits, as dictated by the pages of Grazia magazine, while Geri was clad in a floaty floral maxi dress, also sanctioned by the fashion press.

Unfortunately the winning Spice Girls formula of five distinctive, yet mutually complementary looks had been forgotten. The question of whether the reunion would be a genuine return to form, or an ill-advised vanity project began to form.

N0w I was never a Spice Girls fan, but I could see why so many other people were. When they burst on to the scene in the mid nineties they had an air of not caring what anyone thought about them. They turned platform shoes and Union Jack prints into must have items for under-15s.

It doesn't bode well for their comeback that they seem to have lost their devil-may-care charm and energy.

But as Britney demonstrated this week, the biggest media, marketing, and fashion disasters can be averted by a great pop record. Unfortunately the buzz on the pop blogs about their new song Headlines (Friendship Never Ends) does not look good for the group.

The video that accompanies the song is even worse. Desperate and embarrassing. Look at us gyrating in our bras! Stroking our hair! Gazing wistfully through the shadows! Showing off the bodies that have been ravaged by various eating disorders over the past decade!

For women who have reunited on their own terms, with complete creative control, they are failing to enact even the most basic 'girl power'.

Of course people who are desperate to indulge in pop-culture nostalgia, and have forked out £75 for a ticket to the tour might be able to convince themselves that the group still has what it takes, but it doesn't look like they'll be winning over any new fans.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy

britney's comeback

this ain't a scene it's a goddam marketplace

dick and dom: the saviours of radio one

not for girls: how teachers are limiting horizons

2007-10-19T17:59:00.001+01:00

Boys will enjoy reading Brave New World, while girls would probably prefer A Little Love Song.

Girls should read female authors, but boys needn't bother.

I wish I was talking about the view of an educationalist from fifty years ago, but unfortunately this is the guidance being given by teachit.co.uk, one of the UK's leading websites for English teachers (the website claims its resources are used by "thousands of teachers nationwide").

They have split their recommended reading list for 14-15 year olds by gender. I'm sure they'd never provide separate reading lists for white and ethnic minority students, or decide that Protestant kids, with their famous work ethic, would like different books to their decadent Catholic classmates. As usual it seems the essentialist myths about gender are the toughest to shift.

The boys list contains no books written by women, and tales of adventure, fantasy, and political intrigue:

A Sample:
Bernard Ashley - Little Soldier
Tim Bowler - River Boy
Benjamin Zephaniah - Refugee Boy
Robert Harris - Enigma
Phillip Pullman - His Dark Materials
Terry Pratchett - Discworld series
John Grisham - The Firm
Douglas Adams - Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Nick Hornby - Fever Pitch
Ernest Hemingway - Death in the Afternoon
Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

The list for girls reads rather differently. It is full of love stories, and rather short on books with political relevance or even wit and humour:

For Example:
Amy Tan - The Bonesetter's Daughter
Joanne Harris - Chocolat
Michelle Magorian - A Spoonful of Jam
Sebastian Faulks - Charlotte Gray
Louis de Bernieres - Captain Corelli's Mandolin
Penepole Lively - Cleopatra's Sister
Melvin Burgess - Loving April
HE Bates - The Darling Buds of May
Iris Murdoch - A Severed Head
Ian McEwan - Atonement
Alice Seabold - Lovely Bones

This does a disservice to both girls and boys, and to literature itself. I read Brave New World when I was around that age, and enjoyed both the science fiction and the political message, despite being a girl! And why should boys miss out on reading Ian McEwan or Iris Murdoch? These lists play into outdated stereotypes and limit the horizons of young people who should be encouraged to explore the world, and widen their literary experiences.

The joy of reading is that you can be a powerless fourteen year old in a small town, and have access to places you've never been, people you've never met, and ideas you've never encountered before. These are things that can change who you are and how you engage with the world.

It is depressing that teachers who have such a potentially powerful tool at their disposal are misusing it so horribly.

**UPDATE** As I should have mentioned I wanted to leave a link, but unfortunately the list is only available as a downloadable PDF file for registered users of the site. I managed to get hold of a paper copy. I'll see if I can get the use of a scanner to upload it.

kate s-b

If you liked this post you might enjoy:

humourless feminists: why don't they just cheer up?

air hostess, i dislike the way you dress

dahl's marvelous medicine

what's new? not much: why today is just like yesterday.

2007-10-04T11:57:00.001+01:00

There is a tendency for the people in every era to see their own time as unique, even revolutionary. The changes we see occurring in front of us strike us as being paradigm shifts; we'll never do things in the same way again, maybe we'll even be fundamentally changed as individuals.

I was drawn to consider this phenomenon while reading Walter Benjamin's classic essay Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

In our own time there has been much comment (including on Collected Voices) about the changes to media and society connected to the development of the social web, as well as speculation as to their consequences. Much of this analysis in interesting and incisive, and there is a running theme that we are witnessing an unprecedented shift to a media space that is constructed by its own audience.

How striking then, was this section of Benjamin's essay (written in 1937):

For centuries a small number of writers were confronted by many thousands of readers. This changed toward the end of the last century. With the increasing extension of the press, which kept placing new political, religious, scientific, professional, and local organs before the readers, an increasing number of readers became writers - at first, occasional ones. It began with the daily press opening to its readers space for "letters to the editor." And today there is hardly a gainfully employed European who could not, in principle, find an opportunity to publish somewhere or other comments on his work, grievances, documentary reports, or that sort of thing. Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character... At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer.

Benjamin saw the democratisation of the media as the key change in the art and society of his own time. Historical connections between these changes in our own time have also been noted by Christopher Fahey at graphpaper.com, who compares the social web to the coffee houses of the C17th.

It is easy to be intoxicated by the new possibilities that are opening up, but we shouldn't be above looking to the past for parallels with events today.

It might help to remember the academic hype surrounding globalization theory during the 90s. Globalization was an idea that seemed to describe perfectly certain events and trends on the international scene. Suddenly you couldn't get a book on international relations published, or a research grant if your subject wasn't related to globalization.

However as theorists such as Hirst and Thompson really started to interrogate the theory, they questioned whether rises in international trade and communications were really any different to the increases seen in the C19th or indeed throughout human history.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether web 2.0 is the continuation or acceleration of a long term historical trend towards the free flow of information and its democratisation, or whether it represents a new, essentially different phenomenon.

It is incumbent upon those who herald a new era to explain why today is different to yesterday, a decade or even a century ago

kate s-b

If you liked this post you may enjoy:

everyone's life looks good from their facebook profile

are they terrorists? a response to steven levitt

what makes a real family?

vegetarian individualism and community values: a necessary trade off?

2007-09-28T18:34:00.001+01:00

Vegetarians and Pescetarians, Freegans and Vegans - a few decades ago they'd all be considered crackers, but these days you'll know many of them, and might be one yourself.

I don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of vegetarianism, after all people become vegetarians for all sorts of reasons - medical, moral, and appetitive. What strikes me as interesting is the tension between the preferences of the individual and the nature of food as a mechanism for social bonding.

The balance certainly seems to have shifted in recent years, as demonstrated by the Vegetarian Society's 'Fishconceptions' campaign, launched last month after

"a survey... revealed that a shocking 85% of vegetarians have visited eating establishments that are labouring under the misconception that vegetarians eat fish" (emphasis added)

The campaign clearly aspires to a future in which vegetarians will never face the prospect of being offered food they don't want to eat, and it seems like they are fighting a winning battle.

Of course, the trend towards tailoring yourself an idiosyncratic diet isn't an exclusively modern phenomenon (Tolstoy was a fan, as was Pythagoras, who forbade his followers from eating beans, believing that their resemblance to the human foetus indicated the presence of a soul), but its prevalence, and the way it is treated by society certainly is.

Take this anecdote by Thinking Girl, in which she encounters a person unsympathetic to her vegetarianism:

me: “I’m vegetarian.”

her: gulp.

me: “So why should my personal decision not to eat meat, according to my personal moral code be overridden by your opinion? I should really be, like, forced to eat meat against my will?”

The personal, the individual, and the private, trump all other concerns. Her conclusion is startling in its venom: "fascist pigs".

Contrast this to the days when a vegetarian who was served steak at a dinner party would smile and eat what was on their plate, rather than object and offend their host.

This behaviour was rooted in a culture of profound respect for the value of food, and for the time and effort behind acts of hospitality. Before the Affluent Society, food was scarce, and not to be rejected or wasted lightly. Even in times of plenty, the months effort involved in farming, harvesting and cooking food were something that was appreciated by everyone around the dinner table.

Of course today many of these concerns are void. Your chef might have spent a few hours at the supermarket and in the kitchen, but probably didn't rear and slaughter the chicken on your plate themselves. That, along with the rise of a culture of individualism, has made people far more comfortable in providing those catering for them with a (sometimes very long) list of forbidden foods. In fact, today it is the host that makes the faux pas if they neglect to ask about special dietary requirements.

Fine.

But, as we sit around our tables, a different meal on each of our plates, will we have lost some of the convivial nature of our former eating habits? The ability to discuss the food we're eating, and to share in a communal experience perhaps?

kate s-b

If you liked this post you might enjoy:

what makes a real family?

are they terrorists? a response to steven levitt

trapped in the long tail?

everyone's life looks good from their facebook profile

2007-09-19T15:05:00.001+01:00

Amid my growing concern for the security of my facebook profile, I have been removing data from my account (I know facebook still has the data, but it's the best I can do). I can't quite bear to leave the fold yet - I'll wait for the site's inevitable demise among my friends to do that.

However it was quite a wrench to get rid of all those carefully crafted lists and quotations, designed to be the perfect marketing tool to communicate my values, tastes, and the sense of wry ironic humour that is the essential ingredient of every social network profile.

It got me thinking about one of the core appeals of this type of community - the total control it gives you over how you appear to others. The internet can be a scary, uncontrollable place, but facebook feels like an oasis of perfectibility.

No more having to show friends embarrassing holiday snaps of you looking flabby and sunburned after too many sangrias; instead a carefully selected gallery of your most flattering pictures, backed up by a profile pic taken in the classic myspace pose, with wide doe eyes, multiple chins eliminated, and hips minimised through the magical power of perspective.

Hate your job? Well, just leave that space blank, or describe it in a way that makes it sound like a dream come true:

"I'm an intern at a large independent TV production company" - translation: I work unpaid making tea for arseholes.

It's even easier when it comes to listing your favourite books and films. How about Amelie? Given it's box office takings, it's a remarkably popular choice, and no wonder; who wouldn't want to be associated with its kooky sweetness. The intellectual associations of it being a French film are an added bonus, of course.

The thing is, that everyone knows that these online networks of beautiful, successful, interesting people are a fiction. And the same reasons that we find it so useful in crafting our own image, make it completely useless in finding out anything real about anyone else. You like the Garden State? So what? I've learned nothing about you apart from the fact you are versed in the art of self-promotion.

I do think the death knell for facebook will come in the form of massive security breaches or privacy scandals, but I also think that people will start to realise that it doesn't reflect reality as perfectly as we first thought. We can only truly understand people if we know them flaws and all.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

trapped in the long tail

throw the (face)book at them

blog fiction: is blogging the future of storytelling?

what is art? a defence of techno rock and reality tv

2007-09-18T19:37:00.000+01:00

I turn, yet again, to a post by philosopher Roger Scruton (with whom I respectfully disagree about almost everything).

I found Scruton's latest offering far more engaging than the last one I responded to.

Writing on his speciality of aesthetics, he contends (as usual) that 'art' can be defined, and that definition is a question of duty, taste and judgement. He rails against the relativists, whose argument:

"Is eagerly embraced, because it seems to emancipate people from the burden of culture, telling them that all those venerable masterpieces can be ignored with impunity, that reality TV is "as good as" Shakespeare and techno-rock the equal of Brahms".

He wants to protect the sacred, uplifting qualities of Shakespeare and Brahms from what he sees as the degrading nature of reality TV and techno-rock.

Now I'm sure Scruton could mount a persuasive argument in Shakespeare's favour, perhaps an argument that would convince us that Shakespeare is superior to reality TV. However he gives short shrift to the idea that admirers of Big Brother or Aphex Twin might be able to put forward a cogent (if not a winning) counter-argument.

Instead he makes the rather outrageous statement that people supporting these creative endeavors are motivated to desecrate traditional artistic standards because:

"It imposes an unsustainable burden, something that we must live up to, a world of ideals and aspirations that is in sharp conflict with the tawdriness and imperfection of our own improvised lives... The temptation is to turn on it and shoo it away."

"This you see all the time in children -- the delight in disgusting noises, words, allusions, which helps them to distance themselves from that adult world that judges them, and whose authority they wish to deny."

In other words, we champion facile pop music, trashy gossip mags and exploitative TV shows so that we don't have to invest the time and energy required to appreciate true culture.

My first response is: so what? If you can get the same amount of pleasure from watching a
glossy TV drama as reading Beckett, but with less effort, then surely that's a good thing.

Of course JS Mill (one of my favourite philosophers) pointed out that not all pleasures are equal - we might value 'higher' intellectual pleasures more than the fleeting, selfish pleasures of the flesh.

But even so, who's to say that I can't be genuinely challenged and uplifted by popular culture?

The amount of engagement and fulfillment gained from an artwork seems to have just as much, if not more, to do with the attitude of the person appreciating it than anything inherent in the work itself (assuming a minimum level of depth and content in the artwork - and there's got to be at least as much to think about in The Wire as in Rothko's paintings).

Lots of people trudge dutifully round art galleries, feeling guilty for not seeing what the fuss is about, while at the same time others engage in vigorous philosophical debates about Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

For this latter group, popular culture isn't an escape from the depth and challenges of culture, it's a new way of engaging with them.

above: 'sleeping figure' my own attempt at artistic expression in pen and ink

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

humourless feminists: why don’t they just cheer up?
faking it: how rdf killed tv genre and ate its babies
over and out: voice overs in tv dramas

best of the week

2007-09-14T16:08:00.001+01:00

In a new addition to the blog, we'll be cherry picking the best thing we've seen on the web all week. No lengthy blogrolls here, so you've got no excuse not to click through:

Tim Footman at Cultural Snow has written a great piece on The Wire, examining the reasons for its critical acclaim, and its parallels with the Victorian novel.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you may enjoy:

over and out: voice overs in tv dramas

method acting: how fake is real in big brother

faking it: how RDF killed genre television and ate its babies

dahl's marvelous medicine

2007-09-13T14:33:00.001+01:00

I am a great advocate of retreating into childhood as a remedy when you're feeling down.

Spinning one of my old Boyzone albums (the soundtrack to my early teen existence) never fails to make me feel safe and sound, despite, or even because I can now see the quality of the music for what it is.

Similarly, delving into a favourite old children's book is like bathing in a psychological warm bath.

I'm not condoning trying to crawl right back into the womb, but a couple of hours escape into childhood can do wonders for the soul.

I have recently indulged in a bit of a reading spree of Roald Dahl books, and it just so happens that today is Roald Dahl day (who knew?).

In the week that Dahl was declared kids' most popular author, what better time for a survey of his canon.

I think what makes his books so special is that they tap into universal childhood hopes and fears in a remarkably nuanced and sophisticated way.

Matilda for example, is a story about a child with unrecognised talents who can see the adult world for what it is, but whose youth renders her powerless. Of course unlike in the real world, Matilda's powers cannot be contained and burst out in magical ways. As in many of Dahl's tales, children are empowered to take action to change the world around them.

The BFG is incredibly powerful because it gives children an ally against their greatest nightmares (literally).

And Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, contrary to its 'Golden Ticket' imagery is ultimately not about wish fulfillment. It's message is that whatever life deals you (whether it be the poverty of the Bucket family, or the excesses of Veruca Salt, or even a Golden Ticket), it is your own character and actions that will determine your fate.

The stories have messages, but they are not preachy, moral lessons, rather they are reflections of the ways that the world actually works, in all its splendor and depravity.

But I must resist the urge to overanalyse. Much of the magic comes from the fact that the books are wickedly fun.

I mean: "Goldilocks, like many freaks, does not appreciate antiques." Beat That.

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you may enjoy:

what makes a real family?

over and out: voice overs in tv dramas

britney's comeback: what was she telling us?

2007-09-11T16:29:00.001+01:00

Her lips moved, but no sound came out.

And I'm not talking about the lip-synching.

The real let down of Britney Spears' MTV VMA award performance wasn't the lacklustre performance, fumbling dance moves or dodgy underwear, it was that the star didn't have anything to say to us about where she had been or where she was going:

Ever since Britney turned barm pot and razored off her trademark blond locks, the world has been salivating at the prospect of her comeback.

What would Brit, the subject of miles of column inches during her marriage, pregnancy, divorce, freak-out, break-down and rehab stint, have to say to the world upon her triumphant return?

Nothing.

Choosing the VMAs to launch her new single 'Gimme More' was a smart move. The 2001 VMAs were the scene of her iconic python clad performance of 'Slave 4 U' , as well as her Sapphic kiss with Madonna in 2003. Playing on these kind of historical associations is what pop-culture savvy stars do best.

I wanted to see her either reclaiming her teen-pop crown, with fierce dancing, fireworks and acrobatics, or, even better, I wanted to see her break with her past by tearing off a Barbie-blonde wig to reveal a cutting edge cropped hair style.

You can't return from the public drama she has been embroiled in as if nothing has happened. She needed to reference it in some way, either in anger or wry amusement. To try and slip back into the popworld tent and carry on as normal is to treat her audience like fools.

But then, given her general ineptitude at handling her media profile over the past year we shouldn't be surprised.

Fellow genital-flasher Paris Hilton may not be a genius, but she knows the power of a strategically placed self-help book and copious amounts of tweed when one has just been sentenced to a stay in the Big House. Britney, by contrast has used maxi-packs of Cheetos and Marlboro Lights as her main accessories in recent months.

Britney clearly fails to understand what veterans like Madonna know by instinct: that when everything you do, say and wear is under constant scrutiny, that these things can become loaded with power and significance. You can harness this power to send out your chosen message to the world.

When Madonna bellowed 'motherfucker' live on British TV at the 2001 Turner Prize award she was declaring that she was a radical, taboo-busting artist, just like the young prize nominees. Whether it was true or not didn't matter, the message was sent out loud and clear.

If Britney is going to save her career she needs to learn this lesson fast, or at the very least employ a manager who already knows their stuff.

Any other suggestions on how she should move on from here? Or any examples of other stars using their media smarts to escape career oblivion?

kate s-b

dick and dom: the saviours of radio one

2007-09-07T12:42:00.000+01:00

The BBC announced the new autumn schedule for Radio One yesterday, and as usual it's a mixed bag, with some crushingly conservative decisions, along with some interesting new risks.

Giving Chris Moyles an extra half an hour in the morning makes a depressing kind of sense, given that he pulls in over seven million listeners. I’d rather tune in to Wogan, but then I’d rather listen to a jackhammer shattering my own shin bones than Moyles’ flabby self aggrandising waffle.

Completely incomprehensible is the inclusion of Kelly Osbourne in the station’s line up. The Sunday Surgery used to be a supportive, friendly but honest little show. The idea of listening to Osbourne trying to give advice to a sixteen year old in Hull suffering with depression fills me with dismay.

The BBC is misguided in believing that Kelly Osbourne will appeal to younger listeners just because she’s young and appeared on an MTV reality show five years ago. On this kind of show it is an empathetic personality and approach that draws people in, not whatever ‘star power’ Osbourne possesses (as Stuart on Hecklerspray so amusingly comments).

As a passionate fan and evangelist for the talents of Dick and Dom (of Da Bungalow fame), I am delighted at the inclusion of the double act on Sunday mornings. The show, I’m sure, will be fantastic, as well as the perfect stepping stone for them to move away from kids’ entertainment to become the next Ant and Dec of British light entertainment.

The biggest risk by station big-wigs (at least on first appearance) is giving a show to Greg James, who was still doing his time on UEA’s student radio earlier this year, before winning a National Student Radio award.

If the BBC makes break out stars like Russell Brand do time on 6music before promotion to their biggest station, then it must be pretty confident in his talents. Perhaps he’ll be another person worth tuning in for – unlike Osbourne he’s earned his show on merit rather than through nepotism.

James’ inclusion almost makes up for the fact that Vernon Kay and Scott Mills will still be clogging up Radio One’s airwaves. Let’s console ourselves with Screenwipe’s take on Kay’s meteoric rise:

kate s-b

If you liked this post, you might enjoy:

heart and soul: religion on tv

this ain't a scene it's a goddam marketplace

print journalism croaks

what makes a real family?

2007-08-22T18:42:00.000+01:00

“We’re going to keep trying to strengthen the American family, to make them more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons.” So declared George Bush Sr. in 1992

The quotation went on to become the programme’s most successful marketing slogan, and is still guaranteed to be repeated in any article or magazine spread about the Simpsons franchise.

In one line it tells the story of Matt Groening’s success: unlike the saccharine Waltons, which held up a cardboard cut-out archetype of domestic life, the Simpsons showed a family in all of their messy, real, embarrassing glory.

So the story goes.

But 15 years on, this description of the Simpsons starts to look a little dated. For its time, yes, it was revolutionary. We hadn’t seen a family on TV whose members were inconsiderate, abusive, and often violent toward each other, but whom we nevertheless loved and identified with. But how subversive was it? At the end of every episode, all problems were smoothed over with that catch all solution ‘love’, and the normal order of things was restored. Furthermore, the Simpsons had 2.4 children, a stay-at-home mom, and a pretty clichéd life in the suburbs.

In recent years, pop culture has chipped further and further away at the taboo that says that the more dysfunctional, embarrassing features of family life aren’t for mass consumption (let alone celebration).

Malcolm in the Middle shows what family life looks like with five boys running wild, with parents who are barely more sane and responsible than their offspring:

Over the past year or so, the anonymous weekly ‘Living with Teenagers’ column in the Guardian’s Family section has continued this trend. Fantastically written, with great comic timing, it’s full of sibling squabbles, teen angst, and parental guilt and resentment:

"A scream.
Becca is in the room. I open my eyes, shut them again. Maybe she'll see that I'm sleeping and creep out quietly. Fat chance.
"Mu-um!"
"Oh God, what is it now?"
I don't say it very nicely.
"Those fucking boys! They won't let me watch my fucking TV programme. They've chucked me out of the sitting room. They have no right."
"Becca," I say quietly, "I'm trying to rest. But if you want to go and watch on the little TV in your father's study."
"Why should I? Why should I be the one to go into that hellhole? I don't see why it should be me. Why can't you just get off your butt and do some proper parenting for once?"
OK, I think, stay calm.

Writers are enjoying finding out how far they can go without leaving their mainstream audience behind. The answer, it seems, is pretty far. After all, even if you can’t relate to these families, it is always comforting to feel that your own isn’t so bad by comparison.

kate s-b

If you liked this post you might enjoy:

over and out: voice overs in tv dramas

humourless feminists: why don't they just cheer up?

air hostess, i dislike the way you dress