total wipeout…..best tv show ever?

Yep it quite possibly is.

I know that as a ‘media’ student I should probably say something like Dispatches  or Question Time but quite frankly seeing people bounce off a giant red ball on to another giant red bull like a rag doll to then fall in to a pool is funny and more to the point will always be funny. Know matter what happens in the future, we might all live on Mars and eat hydrogen but watching people make fools of them selves bouncing off foam balls and then getting punched in the balls will always be funny. To me anyway.

It’s slapstick comedy like no other, and I love it, I always have. It probably started with ‘Get Your Own Back’  and ‘Fun House’. Programs that I loved as a kid for the same very reason. Watching people being silly and then getting plunged into something is always funny. There is a lack of gunge on TV these days, more dunking is in order.

I have to say that  the presenters just act as a rude interruption to the assault course fun, which is disappointing because I like Richard Hammond but when compared to somebody getting stuck, swinging on a rope 10ft in the air, he just isn’t as funny. I don’t even know the name of the female presenter, but at least she is actually there, she is there but she isn’t funny, again not her fault, Billy Connelly wouldn’t be funny if he had to do a gig after somebody had just thrown themselves at four giant balls and bounced around on them.

Some might say that its good but not the sort of thing that the BBC should be doing, as they say ‘not in its remit’. It should find some educational and informative angle on people throwing themselves around an assault course. Well I have to say then don’t watch, if you can’t see the point in it, then turn over and watch Emmadale instead. Wipeout might not educate or inform but it does entertain and if that’s all it does then that’s fine by me. The thing about the BBC is that because of the license fee we all presume that we have a say. People, by people I generally mean the Daily Mail will jump the BBC’s back over anything that is slightly ’not within the remit’ and by ‘remit’ what  they are really saying is BBC are making to many populist and young programmes.

I once heard Kelvin McKenzie, the ex editor of The Sun talking about the long reaching arm of the BBC. His main argument was that BBC are doing things that are taking business away from commercial broadcasters. For example he said that BBC Radio 1 could be given up to give the market to commercial radio, BBC Three isn’t needed as places like E4 cater for youngsters. In fact the only radio station he would keep would be Radio 4 and Radio 5 live. What McKenzie has done here is, believe the BBC, as he markedly points out again and again, should not produce anything that he doesn’t like. What he has forgotten, along with many people who complain ( again Daily Mail readers), is that as Stephen Fry puts it, the BBC is the nations fire-place. It isn’t for a particular demographic, it is for everyone. As a result I don’t presume that all the programmes it produces are for me or even that I should approve of all of them. I have never watched and don’t really intend on watching Songs of Praise or Antiques Road-show but I presume that some people do enjoy them, in which case that is fine.

So  Total Wipeout is then pure entertainment, the stuff that would make Lord Reith turn in his grave. I’m not suggesting that all programmes should be like Total Wipeout, but I like the fact it is there. For Total Wipeout is absolutely what the BBC should be about on a Saturday night, its knowingly stupid, knowingly silly and just what you want to sit down to with friends and family. I want more BBC everywhere and anywhere. I am in no doubt that Wipeout is doing a great and good public service, maybe even more important than half the programmes on the BBC, its making me laugh, again and again and again. It’s either the greatest programme or im just very…very simple.

why Social Media

I use social media every day, ether going on Facebook, sending the odd tweet or probably more frequently consuming social media in the form of news.

All the connections, all the conversations

Even right now as I’m blogging I am adding to the great ocean of social media, media that is created and consumed by ordinary people. What social media has done is put the power of reporting in the hands of the people, it has democratized the media. Anybody with a computer or a phone can now become a reporter, a citizen journalist. Not only are people using social media to report news, but  through the social networks and the blogosphere, can actively change and dictate the news agenda.

This though might seem that journalist will soon be rendered useless. However I don’t think so and this point is what I have come understand and realise through this trip through the world of social media. I think that when I have been looking at the role and use of social media I have t come to see what a fantastic tool it can be for the journalist. Facebook, probably more so Twitter, is a direct line straight to the people. I think the blog regarding the Christchurch earthquake highlighted this very point. Sitting at my computer I was able to see the inner thoughts of people, strangers, actually going through the aftershocks in real time. No other method apart from the telephone would have been able to deliver this insight. It is, in a way the very foundation of reporting, the ability to get what people are going through, not what a president says or a spokesman, but normal people going through the actual event.

Social media is, however far more than just a tool for the journalist. For me it is tool for everyone to do what humans have been doing since we stood up. It gives us they ability to talk. To talk, have conversations and tell stories. It’s a fundamental pillar stone of being a human, social media has allowed these connections to happen all around the world.

journalism and law

Right so apparently you cant just go around slandering people and revealing identities, you get in trouble, a lot of trouble.

The journalist has to think about al manor of things before he/she can publish a story. What are the implications of the story being in the public domain, not only the legal issues but the ethical and moral questions that need to asked.

Moral and ethical issues vary depending on the journalist and the publication. Often ethical and moral questions are weighed up with how sensational the story will be, and how much the story will sell.

However while ethical and moral question on the whole are left up to the journalist and publisher, issues of what is legality are far more black and white. im not sure you interested, but if you ever find yourself with piece of information could possible turn into a story, it probably best you keep in mind some of these points:

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is the effect that a story might have on the ability of a on going trail to be fair. This would include the exposure of any of the defendants previous convictions, any background info that would sway a jury, as well as pictures of the defendant that might question his identity. It is also when a court order breached or if tape recording and taking of pictures. Contempt of court can also occur if the press expose jury deliberation details.

Reporting on Restricted Information

For example if a defendant is below the age of 18 then the press are not allowed to publish details about the person unless the restrictions are removed from by the court.

If the subject of the report is under the age of 18 then what ever story permission from the parent or guardian must have been obtain

the court can also make you reveal a source of a story, no matter how secret you would wish it to be. If the revelation of a source would aide national security then it can be forcibly found out, if the the revaluation of a source is in the national interest then it also can be uncovered, this would include if the information would aide the prevention of crime and disorder.

Defamation

No….not the act of doing a poo, that’s defecation. No, all you budding journalist will have to watch what you say, dont be to nasty now! Defamation can be the ridicule and or referring to the a person in regards to them being un able to perform their job.

When a defamatory statement is written down and put into a permanent form it is called libel. Libel can be convicted in the courts and is often used used by celebrities against newspapers. Slander is a statement that is defamatory but in a more transient form.

news features are a wonderful thing

This would be the stand first of the feature, giving you an idea about what I’m going to say and what bit of news I will be giving you a interesting insight in.

A news feature is an angle, point of view or just a more in depth approach to a news article on any particular day. The feature is a fantastic tool for the journalist. It gives objective news, an voice and opinion.

Features allow opinions on major news events as well soft everyday stories. These opinions that are often not allowed to be voiced in reporting. It not only gives opinion but gives, wider background to a story, giving more detail and context to news. Experts on particular issues are useful to the knowledge hungry consumer. Features from opinion leaders help us, the consumers of media, to form are own opinion on the matter. We find it easier to form an opinion due to the fact that we, more often than not trust the expert and they have to say. When news is reported objectively it is much harder to do this.

 

Rebels running out of ammo??

An example of this can be seen almost every day, so much so when there is a major crisis such as the one in Libya. There is plenty of news coming out of Libya, almost everyday there are new reports of troop movements and the ‘no fly zone’ created by the NATO forces. But how do we make sense of all this, how do we understand the wider situation and historical president to put the news in to context. The answer is of course through features. The Libya crisis is full of pot holes of grey areas an ethical mine field full of opinion and conflict. I could pick out many example of features, however all im going to is direct you in the direction the BBC website here.

One such feature which gives great context to the growing question about arming the rebel army is by Jonathan Marcus the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent. The feature he wrote is entitled,  Arming Libya’s rebels: A cautionary tale . The feature gives detailed context to past conflicts such as Bosnia and Afghanistan to where arming the rebels isn’t always the best idea. This is something that isn’t news in itself but as mentioned overlaps and informs the reader allowing greater understanding to future news stories.  

Sport also has a great deal of features as consumers of the news, often aligned to one team or another like to hear opinion from experts. An opinion from your favourite ex player is far better held up as worthy then one from an unknown person. This then is another aspect of feature writing, particular reflective pieces. Where the opinion is coming from is often all important.

The point of a feature is then not be the news but be around the news, overlap and intertwining. It is inform the reader, possibly giving opinion. It is very much news making sense of its self.

 

drugs anyone???

Humans love drugs, we can’t get enough of them, from ancient tribes to modern day societies men, women and children have sort out and taken drugs. It is just a fact of life.

This isn’t going to be a ‘legalise drugs’ argument. I’m not sure where I stand on the subject, I’m not sure anybody does. It is a subject that in are modern day society could not be more emotive or divisive. The question whether to legalise drugs is not by any stretch of the imagination a simple one. It is has so many unknowns, variations and outcomes. What drugs to legalise? What is classed as a drug? Why legalise some and not others?  How to regulate drugs? These are questions that consume the arguments on both sides of the fence. It might be a cop out, but today I’m going nowhere near them.

No, what bothers me about the whole drugs debate is the blurring of the line between objectivity and subjectivity. The example of this will be Professor David Nutt. Back in 2009 he was the government’s chief medical adviser on drugs. The go too man for the government for the shaping of policy and legislation, the governments scientist.

It is, and always will be of the highest importance to the country that decisions regarding the nation’s health are made from a pure scientific foundation. Anything other than an impartial, objective foundation of policy in regard to health would mean a complete lack of trust in the science behind any policy, whether it is health or the environment. Trust in science is the basis of our modern day society, it shapes everything, to the NHS, the tax we pay, the cars we drive and the things we buy. Science is by its very definition an objective means for discovering and testing, it is reliable and verifiable. In other words it is the complete opposite of politics.

Anyway back to Prof David Nutt. He is man paid for is objective view on drugs. In 2009 he gave his view and was sacked for it. He was sacked because his objective view did not tally with the government’s subjective one….shock. Prof Nutt’s view was that the classification of cannabis was wrong and should not be raised to the ‘B’ category from ‘C’. This decision, claimed Prof Nutt was not based in scientific fact rather political gain. Now why would a scientist, who has studied drugs as his career and Britain’s leading authority on drug use and dangers lie, or want to declassify cannabis for any other reason than facts based in science. I doubt very much that he is a stoner, but you never no, David Cameron was….

I mean what the f***!!  The government sacked a professor that they employ for his objective opinion, for having an objective opinion. Welcome to Britain. The words of the Home Sectary, Alan Johnson was that ‘they lost confidence’ in the Professor.  Prof Nutt was sacked, and many other scientist government advisors left in protest.

After his sacking Prof Nutt and his colleagues set up the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. A committee dedicated to finding out about drugs with out a political agenda. The result was a published article in the Lancet that stated that alcohol was the most damaging drug to both the consumers and society, while ecstasy and LSD where among the least harmful to consumers and society. Check it out here. Prof Nutt also called the division between illegal highs and alcohol and tobacco ‘artificial’.

Now I’m starting to come down one side of the fence now which I said I wasn’t going to do so I do apologise, accept I’m not going too. I think it is obvious to anyone who reads the facts that alcohol is far more dangerous than some other drugs, while other drugs are more dangerous than alcohol. We forget that the British government sent soldiers to fight the Chinese for the right to sell opium, we won of course and they gave us Hong Kong. It was opium that we grew, opium and cocaine that you could buy at Harrods and send to the boys at the front in the First World War. The selling and legalisation of drugs isn’t so alien or far fetched, however, like many other people, I’m just not sure.  The least we can do is have a proper look at it.

We can not have a debate about drug legalisation or illegalisation until we take the politics out of it. We can’t have a situation where politics is dictating science; if we do that will be the time to give up and hit the crack, as very foundation of our modern society would be gone.

It is clear that politics has a problem with science, from Dr David Kelly to Professor Nutt, scientific opinion is not welcomed. The scientist are there to reveal truth and fact to society, we can then vote on how we deal with the truth and not let sticky fingered politicians get there hands on it until then.

I’m off down the shops to buy a bottle of whisky and a pack of fags.

xxx

some good articles to read and watch……..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkc1XtoAi94&feature=related

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8204123/Legalise-all-drugs-says-former-Labour-Home-Office-minister.html

#christchurch#earthquake

I’m sitting at the computer in sleepy Dorset and I have the whole world at my finger tips.

The world talks to you through Twitter and Facebook and today, the 22nd of February, it’s talking about Christchurch, New Zealand. So far BBC news has 65 people dead from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake which hit at late last night GMT and early afternoon NZ time. In a part of the world that is used to such events this earthquake has destroyed more and looks to have killed more than any in recent memory.

Just out of habit every morning I wake up and log on to BBC news website. I popped on Twitter and it was awash with the earthquake.

Found these photos by twobigthreelittle. Looks utterly devastated. I struggle to believe that only 65 people have been killed by the look of these pictures.

You can donate to the Red Cross here.

The Christchurch Cathedral seems to be the over-riding image on Twitter, the before and after of the Cathedral are a fitting juxtaposition of the two worlds being experienced by the residents of Christchurch. The serene pictures of the ‘before’ is in complete contrast with the ‘after’. Take a look at for your self.

Before

After

It is a powerful image for all and one that I have no doubt will come to symbolise the destruction and terror that the people of Christchurch have gone through. I’m also sure that the rebuilt cathedral will symbolise the new Christchurch that I have know doubt, will emerge from the rubble. If I know one thing about the kiwis it’s that they will come back, stronger and better. It is not the first time this will happen and it is not the last.

Sitting here blogging away I have now idea what the people of Christchurch must be going through. Another quick look at Twitter and the true horror is revealed. As night draws in for the residents of Christchurch there is still the terror and fear of after shocks. It is unthinkable how people can continue to function, let alone continue to rescue and search for others in the full knowledge that a mild after shock could be enough to bring what is left of the building around them down!

“@nataliestaylor: it’s not the aftershocks that keep me awake, it’s the not knowing when they may come #christchurch“

Scary, so scary!!!

“unifex: Is anyone else hearing these aftershocks coming before the shaking starts? just in the last few hours or so. #eqnz“

Sounds like something out of a disaster movie!!! Twitter is also helping with the rescue effort. One such tweet was asking whether anybody had got the plans for a particular building in Christchurch, if the authorities don’t know, ask the people.

I hadn’t really appreciated the scale of the earthquake until I checked out this website, http://www.christchurchquakemap.co.nz/ (select the 22 nd of Feb on the drop down menu). It wasnt just one earthquake but many!

This is where social media really comes into its own, this is where everybody can see the human side of the story that the big media outlets try so hard to capture. Because of Twitter and Facebook we know what the ordinary kiwi is going through at this time, we know because they have told us themselves.

So yes, the social media is good and useful. It has opened up new doors and opened up new eyes of parts of the world and society that would normally go unnoticed. The world is changing, no longer do we only rely on the media to tell the people what the ‘people’ are saying, we can now listen to the people talking directly to the people.

However this is should not be the point of this blog. Actual death and destruction is far more important than by what medium it is brought to our attention. People have died, lost loved ones and their home. It is time to get off the blog and do something useful. Donate.

the great gig in the sky

I got asked what my favourite album is. I usually hate those ‘what’s your favourite…?’ questions as I either instantly forget any film or band that I have ever watched or listen to, or I try desperately to sound intelligent and I fight the urge to say ‘Cool Running’s’ (which by the way is an epic movie and probably one of my all time favourites,  ‘Sanka…you dead? ’….’ya mon’). However my favourite album is not quite so hard. Dark Side of The Moon by Pink Floyd.

One of the most recognisable album covers of all time

Dark Side of the Moon is one of the biggest selling albums of all time, selling an estimated 45 million copies world-wide. It still holds the record for most number of weeks in the Billboard 200 chart, with a mind-blowing 741 weeks, from 1973 to 1988. In Britain alone it estimated that 1 in 4 households own a copy and is the 4th best-selling of all time. I think its fair to say that it was very successful.

I say that Dark Side is my favourite album because it is the only album that I have ever listened to that I am not bored of or ever had enough of. I couldn’t tell you how many times I have listened to the album from start to finish; it would be well into the hundreds. I have my step dad to thank for my slight obsession with all things Pink Floyd. I assume from a very young age he was playing Pink Floyd albums and this exposure it is one of the many things that I am so grateful now that I am older. I have liked Pink Floyd for as long as I can remember. I remember not knowing who Pink Floyd were, like so much of the history and mythology of Pink Floyd for a long while they were faceless, a mystical and mysterious band that played weird music with enchanting lyrics which I didn’t understand but I like where they took me. The Division Bell was one of my first memories of thinking that they were singing about a strange world that I didn’t know. I remember being put in front of the TV and watching the 1994 record-breaking gig at Earls Court. I gig like I had never seen before, planes flying over the crowd and crashing into the stage, giant pigs dancing out of the stage, the worlds biggest glitter ball that opens up above the crowd. The videos that accompanied the music and the lazar show were enough to turn me in to a life long fan. I had never seen anything like it and I haven’t since.  It was the best gig, it was strange, exciting, scary and musically mind-blowing. Just the guitar solo to Comfortably Numb was enough for me to pick up a guitar.

But I still didn’t really know who they were, who is Pink, which one is Floyd? I remember asking my step dad and his answer was quite telling, he said ‘they are 4 very rich men’. Not really the answer I was looking for back then but now I understand why he gave that answer. They are a group of very rich men, of which none of them is Pink. The individuals are all ways over shadowed by the band itself. Pink Floyd is bigger than any of the individual. Pink is in effect a fictional character created by the band, Pink could be you or me, its genius. The evidence for this is the huge popularity of the Australian Pink Floyd in the absence of the real Floyd. It is the music that people go and see, it is the show that people want not egos.  I’m not saying personally that the Australian Pink Floyd is better than David, Roger, Rick and Nick but the music over shadows the people. This can be seen in the literal sense with the album The Wall were they built a physical wall to over shadow everything, a wall that separated the audience from the band, separated the music from the band, a separation that I had felt so clearly as a child. For the first songs of the live staging of The Wall it wasn’t even the band playing to the audience, it was four musicians in face masks of the band.  Did the audience feel cheated, no? The audience had seen the Pink Floyd why would they.

The Floyd Left to right: Richard Wright, David Gilmour, Nick Mason, Roger Waters

The history of Pink Floyd is as long as it is interesting and I’m sure one day will make for an amazing film. I’m not going to go in to it now; I will leave that for another day. I will say this though; the history of Pink Floyd involves greed, madness and death which is the very thing that the Dark Side encompasses. The Dark Side is very much an album about the band. There first number 1 in the U.S. was Money, a single that became the very thing that is was about. It is often claimed by spectators and the band that The Dark Side of the Moon was Pink Floyd’s creative peak. I tend to think this is true as after the success of the album the band started to show the strains of success, with their next album being Wish You Were Here, an album looking back at one of their founders Syd Barrett, an album very much about the fact they did not know what to do after success.  The thing about Pink Floyd is the mythology that surrounds them is almost as interesting and consuming as the music and more often than not directly influences the music.

As I grew up and ventured deeper into the world of the Floyd I was hungry for more knowledge, who are they. I listened to all the albums I could get my hands on again and again. When everyone at school was talking about favourite bands there would always be the Blink 182’s and the Offspring, but for me the answer was always Pink Floyd, it always was and still is. To me Pink Floyd is very personal, it is part of my child hood, and songs like High Hopes, The Great gig in the Sky and Money permeate through my child hood and now through my adult-hood. I loved the lyrical guitar solos of David Gilmour, the fantastically political lyrics of Roger and the melon-conic melodies of the late Richard Wright on the keys and not forgetting the often forgetting the drums and amazing handle bar moustache of Nick Mason.

I think that The Dark Side of the Moon is so listenable to me now because Rogers lyrics have not only become more understandable to me as an adult but have grown in relevance in the world that I am living in. I can see there is an us and them, I can see lunacy in the world, I can see the power and destruction of money. The Dark Side has grown darker, better and a voice now, as it was in 1973. I simply can not get bored with listening to it. It is everything that it seems to be, and more. The great gig in the sky, a song that although is about death is beautiful and powerful, and to me is everything I love about the Floyd. The vocals seem to reach beyond the realms of normality, anger, passion, sadness and again sheer beauty scream at you. It is the Floyd doing what they do best, conveying all these emotion without saying a word. It is simply stunning and breath-taking. I can’t urge you enough to sit down, do nothing and play the album on full whack.

Dark Side may well be Pink Floyd’s greatest ever gig, it was for me watching them in earls court and it was 11 years later at Live 8 where I stood and could not believe that I was watching my favourite band. A band that had split up before I was born, a band that I thought I would never see live. At that moment Pink Floyd and all their history didn’t matter, it was all about the music.

www.pinkfloyd.co.uk/