I have just read Tony Blair's lecture on "Public Life", by which he means politics/media relations, given at Reuters HQ in Canary Wharf this afternoon.....
I'm going to compose and post my comment after taking time to compose myself.
Where to start. I'm going to take a very rudamentary approach and cover the bits that irk me one by one. Or I could just express my anger in some other form, I am quite annoyed.
Tony's dissertation covered the changing nature of the media, the proliferation of sensationalist reporting and public perception of both media and politics. All very timely, inter-linked topics but you're not fooling anyone with you're apologetic phrasing Tony..."I've made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said". The constant references to politicians afraid of a free/wild press are sickening. If politicians are so scared of backlash, they deserve to be ribbed in the media. Grow up.
But I'm starting back-to-front...Tony kicks off by stating the obvious, talking about the stretched relationship between journalists and politicians, "the relations between politics and the media are and are by necessity, difficult". He goes on to explain to a bunch of journalists the changing nature of their profession, the demands of rolling news and the digital age, as a consquence of which politicians are held to account in real time, as events change. Boo hoo.
Acccording to Tone responsible individuals in all walks of life are scared of the media, it is too vast and fickle to cope with. I think Mr Blair will find that "the media", be it newspapers/magazines in print or online respect public figures who are square with the press. Those who deal with the media in their own way, do not flip-flop about and are not cowed by the potential of bad press, are given the space (and support) to say their piece.
"Most politicians come into public life with a desire to serve". So do most journalists.
Apparently Britian's apathy towards Parliamentary democracy can be put down to reduced political reporting. Charles Moore, ex Telegraph editor and experienced political correspondant, has pre-empted the PM here. On Saturday he wrote an article outlining how coverage at Westminister had become down right dull as MPs are loosing the motivation to debate bills that will sink or float regardless of discussion.
Blair says: "If you are a back bench MP today, you learn to give a press release first and a good Parliamentary speech second". I can tell you without hesitation which the mass media would prefer and it's not the Janet and John style press release.
Then Blair moves to the thorny subject of sensationalism. Shock language is used on a daily basis, making headlines stand out and moulding readers responses. Yup...Sometimes such "impact" is needed, elsewhere it is openly used to spice up stories. Blair talks about the dramatic bent of the media as if its a new thing. Journalists have to eat you know....
"Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked". Not true. Readers soon become attuned to evocative wording (whatever paper they read) . They will only venture beyond the first paragraph if the subject interests them. The power lies in engaging, well written reports.
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
Paris revealed (no, not like that...)
It was all an act! Who'd a thunk it?! Give the girl an Oscar...
The snot covered Barbie ("Its not fair!") we saw leaving court is no more. From the bowels of an LA jail will emerged a beautifully transformed Paris Hilton, moved by God to pull her socks up, ditch the "it" image and help heal the world - or so the little grub will have us believe.
Speaking to TV presenter Barbara Walters via phone, Paris told the world's press: "I'm not the same person I was..I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me."
It's lovely to think that Paris has developed a conscience over night, it really is. Oh and it's looking like she's only going to serve half of her 45 day sentence as she's being such a good girl. Well, it'll be straight home for an early night and an Ovaltine (is there a US equivalent?) when she's out then and I expect to see Saint Paris adopting kids and curing AIDs in no time. Am I too sceptical? Perhaps but I bet this butterfly gets her wings burnt before long.
The snot covered Barbie ("Its not fair!") we saw leaving court is no more. From the bowels of an LA jail will emerged a beautifully transformed Paris Hilton, moved by God to pull her socks up, ditch the "it" image and help heal the world - or so the little grub will have us believe.
Speaking to TV presenter Barbara Walters via phone, Paris told the world's press: "I'm not the same person I was..I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me."
It's lovely to think that Paris has developed a conscience over night, it really is. Oh and it's looking like she's only going to serve half of her 45 day sentence as she's being such a good girl. Well, it'll be straight home for an early night and an Ovaltine (is there a US equivalent?) when she's out then and I expect to see Saint Paris adopting kids and curing AIDs in no time. Am I too sceptical? Perhaps but I bet this butterfly gets her wings burnt before long.
A change in the wind....?
Yesterday our leader-to-be visited Baghdad and spent some quality time with our servicemen and the Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki. Our favourite capable Scot told the world how his future government would "learn the lessons" of the run-up to the allied invasion of Iraq, admitting that the "dodgy dossier" which detailed Saddam's WMDs was, in fact, dodgy. Brown went on to outline the hopefull seperation of intelligence investigations from political agenda's. We can but hope...The funding and management of the security services is not public knowledge, finger's crossed our spooks are in control of their own operations, regardless of political pressure.
Despite distancing himself from Blair's Iraq masterplan, Gordon has deflected the opposition's calls for an inquiry into Iraq, explaining that now is not a good time. He's right, I think, and though my sense of outrage demands more info, I doubt critics, myself included, will ever be satisfied with its findings.
Asserting his authority he said: "I don't want to get into talking about timetables or numbers'', concerning withdrawl. Go Gordon! After Dannatt and Blair's bickering earlier in the year, the remainder of our troops are in Iraq indefinately, at least it's good to see Gordon isn't being baited.
But my faith in the healing power of sensible Father Brown falters over the thorny issue of Parliamentary reform. "I have already said Parliament should have a more formal role in issues of war and peace", he said. I seriously hope so, Parliament has been reduced to nothing but a formal ideal under Blair. It needs an active role. We have representatives who come together at Westminister to argue on behalf of the people but there is little argument, only meek consensus - the line is well manned. There have been calls from a respected collection of "former permanent secretaries, defence chiefs and businessmen" (Telegraph) to restore Cabinet government - something English politics desperately needs - but it was Blair's closed network of entrenched mandarins and business opportunists that allowed the breakdown of Cabinet authority in the first place....
Despite distancing himself from Blair's Iraq masterplan, Gordon has deflected the opposition's calls for an inquiry into Iraq, explaining that now is not a good time. He's right, I think, and though my sense of outrage demands more info, I doubt critics, myself included, will ever be satisfied with its findings.
Asserting his authority he said: "I don't want to get into talking about timetables or numbers'', concerning withdrawl. Go Gordon! After Dannatt and Blair's bickering earlier in the year, the remainder of our troops are in Iraq indefinately, at least it's good to see Gordon isn't being baited.
But my faith in the healing power of sensible Father Brown falters over the thorny issue of Parliamentary reform. "I have already said Parliament should have a more formal role in issues of war and peace", he said. I seriously hope so, Parliament has been reduced to nothing but a formal ideal under Blair. It needs an active role. We have representatives who come together at Westminister to argue on behalf of the people but there is little argument, only meek consensus - the line is well manned. There have been calls from a respected collection of "former permanent secretaries, defence chiefs and businessmen" (Telegraph) to restore Cabinet government - something English politics desperately needs - but it was Blair's closed network of entrenched mandarins and business opportunists that allowed the breakdown of Cabinet authority in the first place....
Monday, 11 June 2007
Learning curve or downward spiral?
A leading think tank has accused politicians of trashing the national cirriculum and replacing real learning with trendy civil issues and narrow subject matter.
In today's sensational, The Corruption of the Curriculum, Civitas argues that, "The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes...while teachers are expected to help to achieve the Government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students,". Nothing like a cold dose of reality....
In the past the government said that half the UK's eligible demographic should go to university... As a result of such thoughtless targets we are no longer able to distinguish between able and talented students, churning out thousands of coddled, aimless school leavers. More kids want to be famous than be doctors (mind you, its a toughie, what's more oversubscribed, Holywood or the English medical field?), urgh. The other side of the coin sees swathes of dropouts and delinquents who'd much rather engage in petty crime than sit through tepid citizenship classes. Don't blame them.
Civitas outlines how History students are asked to write one-sided extremist interpritations of 9/11 (as a history graduate this seriously worries me, what the hell are our kids going to be learning in the future?) and English lit pupils bypass romanticism and get top marks. In science, the Bunsen burners and water rockets have been shelved in favour of theoretical debates on genetics and nuclear power.
I was never particularly good at science but I thoroughly enjoyed lessons at school, from fighting over lab coats and grumbling about goggles (not at all flattering as I remember), to the singed eyebrows and sulphorous smells that (somehow) capped most lessons, be it Chemistry, Physics or Biology. Ethical debate has its place, but I much prefer the memory of Claire Stockard covered head to toe in red dye. Heh.
Coupled with these allegations of mickey-mouse teaching, the General Teaching Council is now advocating the abolition of all national cirriculum tests for children below GCSE. Excessive testing is stressful and unnecessary for both gifted and slower kids, no doubt, but there has to be some way of gauging development. Otherwise we're going to end up with a load of 16 year olds who've never sat an exam and think Shelley discovered Polonium, or something equally ludicrous.
In today's sensational, The Corruption of the Curriculum, Civitas argues that, "The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes...while teachers are expected to help to achieve the Government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students,". Nothing like a cold dose of reality....
In the past the government said that half the UK's eligible demographic should go to university... As a result of such thoughtless targets we are no longer able to distinguish between able and talented students, churning out thousands of coddled, aimless school leavers. More kids want to be famous than be doctors (mind you, its a toughie, what's more oversubscribed, Holywood or the English medical field?), urgh. The other side of the coin sees swathes of dropouts and delinquents who'd much rather engage in petty crime than sit through tepid citizenship classes. Don't blame them.
Civitas outlines how History students are asked to write one-sided extremist interpritations of 9/11 (as a history graduate this seriously worries me, what the hell are our kids going to be learning in the future?) and English lit pupils bypass romanticism and get top marks. In science, the Bunsen burners and water rockets have been shelved in favour of theoretical debates on genetics and nuclear power.
I was never particularly good at science but I thoroughly enjoyed lessons at school, from fighting over lab coats and grumbling about goggles (not at all flattering as I remember), to the singed eyebrows and sulphorous smells that (somehow) capped most lessons, be it Chemistry, Physics or Biology. Ethical debate has its place, but I much prefer the memory of Claire Stockard covered head to toe in red dye. Heh.
Coupled with these allegations of mickey-mouse teaching, the General Teaching Council is now advocating the abolition of all national cirriculum tests for children below GCSE. Excessive testing is stressful and unnecessary for both gifted and slower kids, no doubt, but there has to be some way of gauging development. Otherwise we're going to end up with a load of 16 year olds who've never sat an exam and think Shelley discovered Polonium, or something equally ludicrous.
Ocean's 13 - the good, the bad, the mediocre
Howdy people....Another day, another dollar...well, had a mixed weekend, got to jump out of a plane with a pretty lady so it wasn't too bad really...Saw Ocean's 13:
It's an improvement on the self indulgent fluff of the second one but it's no masterpiece...
Yet again it's the George and Brad (and a little bit of Damon) show - no complaints from me - the too cool for school buddies work well together as Danny and right hand man Rusty, staging sweet revenge on Al Pacino's perma-tan casino boss Willy Bank, after Bank screws affable Ocean's veteran Reuben.
Ocean and his gang, with the help of Eddie Izarrd (he turned up in the second one - why oh why...), spend the first half of the movie finalising their plans to break The Bank, Pacino's ultra-yuppy new casino. The set-up chops along at an ok pace but its not really engaging...And there's a wierd scene where the boys contaminate a hotel reviewers room...mind you the brothers in Mexico ('tache-a-rific) is a laugh....
With the second half comes the job - and the audience is safe in the knowledge that, despite a few close shaves, Ocean's team will deliver. And its not badly done (apart from a dodgy parawing jump...urgh), though the smooth ensemble appeal of the Ocean's franchise may wear thin for some by this point....It's fun, it's flashy, everyone knows the outcome...few surprises here...
The acting's not bad, Pacino and Matt Damon are very good, and the movie has some genuinely funny moments (who knew crooks liked talk shows?) - thankfully it is a testosterone only affair (the ladies get cut early on) and has the same 60s/70s background groovyness as Ocean's 11. It's a film that's all about the glittery, yet arid style of Vegas - lightweight fun, no brain power required - though unless you're a major fan I'd probably rent it.
It's an improvement on the self indulgent fluff of the second one but it's no masterpiece...
Yet again it's the George and Brad (and a little bit of Damon) show - no complaints from me - the too cool for school buddies work well together as Danny and right hand man Rusty, staging sweet revenge on Al Pacino's perma-tan casino boss Willy Bank, after Bank screws affable Ocean's veteran Reuben.
Ocean and his gang, with the help of Eddie Izarrd (he turned up in the second one - why oh why...), spend the first half of the movie finalising their plans to break The Bank, Pacino's ultra-yuppy new casino. The set-up chops along at an ok pace but its not really engaging...And there's a wierd scene where the boys contaminate a hotel reviewers room...mind you the brothers in Mexico ('tache-a-rific) is a laugh....
With the second half comes the job - and the audience is safe in the knowledge that, despite a few close shaves, Ocean's team will deliver. And its not badly done (apart from a dodgy parawing jump...urgh), though the smooth ensemble appeal of the Ocean's franchise may wear thin for some by this point....It's fun, it's flashy, everyone knows the outcome...few surprises here...
The acting's not bad, Pacino and Matt Damon are very good, and the movie has some genuinely funny moments (who knew crooks liked talk shows?) - thankfully it is a testosterone only affair (the ladies get cut early on) and has the same 60s/70s background groovyness as Ocean's 11. It's a film that's all about the glittery, yet arid style of Vegas - lightweight fun, no brain power required - though unless you're a major fan I'd probably rent it.
Friday, 8 June 2007
A personal low
The eight strongest economies in the world are trying to thrash out a deal to save the planet, the top lawyer in the land has been accused of hushing up kickbacks to the Saudi's and the war in the east continues...I'm ashamed to say that today, none of this moves me. Instead I've got that Friday feeling and will stretch no further than to indulge in a gripe at Paris Hilton...
I am yet to encounter a Paris afficionado (though should I wish to I just need to trawl the net, I know). This is an adult woman who garners interest because she films amateur porn, appears at premiers and produces disgustingly catchy pop music. She's a millionairess, is she a philanthropist? Has she got a high school diploma? Does she obey the law? Three strikes and you're out Paris.
Her early release from the LA county jail - in which she had her own cell in a "special needs" unit - has caused a ruckus across the pond. Why, civil rights groups ask, should an idiotic young woman like Miss Hilton, who has unequivocally violated her driving ban, be allowed cushy prison quarters and then an early release simply because she's a rich celebrity? She is accountable, she should be fairly punished. Quite rightly, she's back in front of the judge today.
But she's ga ga, on the edge of a breakdown, or so goes the buzz. She's been drink driving (on however many occassions) for months but it's now that she chooses to throw a hissy fit in the clinck and then modestly announce her personal epiphany at a global award show last weekend. She will do her time and learn from it.
Paris' lawyer said of her imprisonment: “She’s using this time to reflect on her life, to see what she can do to make the world better and hopefully, in my opinion, to change the attitudes that exist about her among many people”. Blah blah...Lets see you do the whole stretch (a hardy 45 days away from the lens) and then find yourself a real job darlin'.
I am yet to encounter a Paris afficionado (though should I wish to I just need to trawl the net, I know). This is an adult woman who garners interest because she films amateur porn, appears at premiers and produces disgustingly catchy pop music. She's a millionairess, is she a philanthropist? Has she got a high school diploma? Does she obey the law? Three strikes and you're out Paris.
Her early release from the LA county jail - in which she had her own cell in a "special needs" unit - has caused a ruckus across the pond. Why, civil rights groups ask, should an idiotic young woman like Miss Hilton, who has unequivocally violated her driving ban, be allowed cushy prison quarters and then an early release simply because she's a rich celebrity? She is accountable, she should be fairly punished. Quite rightly, she's back in front of the judge today.
But she's ga ga, on the edge of a breakdown, or so goes the buzz. She's been drink driving (on however many occassions) for months but it's now that she chooses to throw a hissy fit in the clinck and then modestly announce her personal epiphany at a global award show last weekend. She will do her time and learn from it.
Paris' lawyer said of her imprisonment: “She’s using this time to reflect on her life, to see what she can do to make the world better and hopefully, in my opinion, to change the attitudes that exist about her among many people”. Blah blah...Lets see you do the whole stretch (a hardy 45 days away from the lens) and then find yourself a real job darlin'.
Thursday, 7 June 2007
A dedicated follower of Bozzer
I think Boris Johnson is marvellous. This admission may not win me many friends but so be it (this is not helping the affirmation of my political objectivity - I'm not a Tory. Maybe if they dressed a little better...).
The man's a riot. Though full of bluster and bombast, his column is always entertaining. Even if I disagree with some of his more oblique, sceptical ranting, he's not stupid (despite the silly public persona). Today's article on the proposed labelling of alcoholic beverages is a good example of the man's clarity (and I'm petty, I enjoy Boris laying in to a young, attractive Labour minister. Misguided muppet that she is on this one).
Well done, Boris, for bringing attention to the recycling implications of labelling - how ironic.
I thoroughly agree that warnings will serve no purpose (apart from aiding inflation). Do smokers take any notice of the glaring "Smoking causes fatal lung cancer" legends on their packets...Nope...They feel a little guilty and then ignore it. The same will prove true for booze.
Of course I don't mean to be flippant, the unhealthy consumption of alcohol is endemic within the UK, across all age ranges and social backgrounds and is a very serious issue. Wonder what it is that drives everyone to drink.....?
Check out www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion for Boris' piece on labelling.
On a similar note...a friend of a friend (is this true? My friend says so..) - a non-smoker - was crossing over a quiet junction one day and became distracted by a fag packet on the ground. She slowed to read the warning and was hit by a car (minor bruises and a fractured shin). Smoking kills, people.
The man's a riot. Though full of bluster and bombast, his column is always entertaining. Even if I disagree with some of his more oblique, sceptical ranting, he's not stupid (despite the silly public persona). Today's article on the proposed labelling of alcoholic beverages is a good example of the man's clarity (and I'm petty, I enjoy Boris laying in to a young, attractive Labour minister. Misguided muppet that she is on this one).
Well done, Boris, for bringing attention to the recycling implications of labelling - how ironic.
I thoroughly agree that warnings will serve no purpose (apart from aiding inflation). Do smokers take any notice of the glaring "Smoking causes fatal lung cancer" legends on their packets...Nope...They feel a little guilty and then ignore it. The same will prove true for booze.
Of course I don't mean to be flippant, the unhealthy consumption of alcohol is endemic within the UK, across all age ranges and social backgrounds and is a very serious issue. Wonder what it is that drives everyone to drink.....?
Check out www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion for Boris' piece on labelling.
On a similar note...a friend of a friend (is this true? My friend says so..) - a non-smoker - was crossing over a quiet junction one day and became distracted by a fag packet on the ground. She slowed to read the warning and was hit by a car (minor bruises and a fractured shin). Smoking kills, people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
