As many are beginning to appreciate, the age of 'Push' broadcasting is fading fast. We are no longer passive consumers, hypnotised by the miracle of moving pictures on a screen. We no longer look behind the TV to see who's there. We want to produce as well as consume.
Hence the latest digital success story. Geriatric1927. A seventy something online phenomenon. In his first week 'on air', his account at YouTube has generated hundreds of thousands of hits in its first week. Enough on a standalone blog to generate thousands of pounds of income.
But more importantly, he represents the point where the technology of broadcasting becomes available to practically everyone. The implications are obvious.
Not only are people of his generation offered an entirely new role in society, but anyone or any organisation can distribute and promote itself or its productions anywhere in the world. The role of the commissioning editor will be radically altered, and scheduling will be a thing of the past. Our days of being mere consumers, tethered to rigid schedules and the vagiaries of the production industry, will largely disappear.
The implications both for society and mainstream broadcasters are stupendous. It is at least as significant as the transition from Steam travel to the internal combustion engine. It is "The fastest generation of technological change since fire." as Alan McCulloch of Saatchi & Saatchi once described it. Richard Eyre called it a 'communicopia'. And now it's here. Everyone is a TV channel now.
8/28/2006
8/09/2006
Thrown Shoes. Whitehall. 5/8/06. 2.50 - 3.10pm Lebanon Solidarity
Lebanon Solidarity
Israeli flag laid on shoes, quickly removed.
8/08/2006
Jews Against Zionism contact with Muslim Opponents of The Seige of Lebanon.. Parliament Sq. 5/8/06. 5pm. Lebanon Solidarity
Established in 1938, Neturei Karta (AKA Orthodox Jews Against Zionism) oppose the establishment the state of Israel. Claiming it is against the Talmud.
Their presence on the march, and the welcome they received, gave the lie, again, to the divisive theories of ethnic incompatibility currently being peddled by those seeking to make people hate and mistrust each other.
It being Sabat, they had walked from Stamford Hill, and were a little late.
'Anti-Zionist Jews come out of the shadows
First Post
Cenotaph Shoes. Whitehall. 5/8/06 - 5.15pm Lebanon Solidarity
Many shoes were thrown and laid in protest in Whitehall. By 6pm they had all been swept away into bins.
Lebanon Solidarity
Jeremy Hardy - Token Celebrity. Lebanon Solidarity
At the end of the day, many found themselves in need of a pint, and among them was the talented and sincere Jeremy Hardy, who agreed to be photographed for this blog in this well-known Whitehall watering hole.
7/27/2006
The Moral Surrender. 9/11 Attacks Excused By Israel.
Only those without morals can fail to see the obscenity of the slaughter in Lebanon.
Taking place beyond their range, it is not justified by the Hezbollah missile attacks. It is a conspicuous act of savagery which Israel will, sadly, come to regret. Opinion in Lebanon already seems to be swinging towards Hezbollah, rather than against, as hoped for in Jerusalem. Presumably, it is only the bombings which are preventing substantial desertions from the Lebanese army to Hezbollah.
But even worse, by being a massacre, it endangers all of us by its surrender of any moral position. By the morals on display, the 9/11 bombers were totally justified. And so at a stroke, the West's whole moral case in 'The War Against Terror' has been undermined by Israel.
And so terrorists the world over will feel more justified in their actions. And naturally, there will be more of them.
Israel, and the rest of the western world, will have to learn that winning this war will take more than bombs, and that killing your enemies' hatred is much more difficult than killing his body.
Taking place beyond their range, it is not justified by the Hezbollah missile attacks. It is a conspicuous act of savagery which Israel will, sadly, come to regret. Opinion in Lebanon already seems to be swinging towards Hezbollah, rather than against, as hoped for in Jerusalem. Presumably, it is only the bombings which are preventing substantial desertions from the Lebanese army to Hezbollah.
But even worse, by being a massacre, it endangers all of us by its surrender of any moral position. By the morals on display, the 9/11 bombers were totally justified. And so at a stroke, the West's whole moral case in 'The War Against Terror' has been undermined by Israel.
And so terrorists the world over will feel more justified in their actions. And naturally, there will be more of them.
Israel, and the rest of the western world, will have to learn that winning this war will take more than bombs, and that killing your enemies' hatred is much more difficult than killing his body.
10/02/2005
Bermondsey Rednecks and Why. 1.
I live in the Bermondsey area and perhaps the most terrifying thing I've seen in the last ten years in London was the sight of little old ladies giving fascist salutes from the balconies of tower blocks to a passing BNP march. Some were old enough to have experienced the Blitz. Many were old enough to be grandparents.
I was walking home with an Asian man who was lost, and sure enough, within five minutes we were attacked by a gang of local teenagers. We had obviously been part of the counter-demonstration, and they took great offence to us walking 'their' streets. Which happen also to be my streets. We were 'jostled', abused and spat at, and just managed to escape into a cab office.
That night an Asian man was stabbed within 300 yards of the Bermondsey South station, it was a matter of luck it wasn't the man I met and was attacked with. The infamous Osprey Estate is not that far away. The culture of redneck, white-trash blackshirt bigotry therefore is well established in Bermondsey as it is in other parts of South London, such as Welling and Eltham, where the name Stephen Lawrence is not a sensible conversation starter in the local pubs.
The typical, Millwall supporting, Bermondsey teenage racist has absolutely no hope of growing up any different. Parents? What if they are to blame, what's the solution then? That sterile old beef. 'It's not the environment - it's those awful parents' ? You go into the Osprey Estate and tell the parents how lousy they are at bringing up their kids and see what happens.
And why are the PARENTS the way they are? Why - because of THEIR parents of course, and their embicility was caused inevitably by THEIR parents, until you end up with eugenicists in white coats deciding who can and who can’t be allowed to reproduce.
Times like this are a nightmare for black people in the area. But there is a historical precedent. Bermondsey does have a tradition of whiteness. The old saying in Southwark goes:
'Peckham's Black, Bermondsey's White, and Dulwich is Rich'.
The point being that poverty, and a succession of feeble local politicians, created segregation in the borough, and that has created racism. The same story was probably repeated all over the country during the late 50's and early 60's. Ward councillors and members of the housing committees would have been told emphatically not to put black families in white neighbourhoods, or else. The result is the informal segregation of communities at the housing and schoolslevel which has been so damaging down the years.
It would be interesting to trawl through the minutes of the thousands of housing committee meetings of the decade 1956-66 to see ifthere were any proposals for cross-party agreements not to exploit race in local elections or concede to racist demands for segregated housing - and who made them and who refused them.
Then we might be a step closer to understanding why so much race hate has been conserved in our cities.
7/08/2005
London 7/7 The Morning After.
The feeling here is quite bizarre today.
Pure and utter defiance is the most economic way of decribing it.
It has given Britain an entirely new global identity. One it has been long searching for.
What role goes with that identity we have yet to see, but the direction we take will depend on who gains control of this new identity, the nostalgics who would use it to re-enact a Battle Of Britain fantasy of the past and invoke and impose their version of the Dunkirk Spirit, or those who would try to direct this momentum in a progressive direction.
Bob Geldof Vs Rupert Murdoch, if you like.
As for yesterday, it's becoming clear that the bombers got it so so wrong.
The bombs went off at the wrong psychological moment, when London was at it's warmest and most unified. As a consequence, yesterday's bombs were seen as particularly spiteful, fun-hating act. An attempt to snatch away innocent joy as well as lives.
The reaction has therefore been a loud 'How dare you.'
It wasn't their fault, but if on Wednesday, Paris had been awarded the Olympic Games, London would not be on the high it is today. The bombers have failed. Partly because of 4 votes of the Olympic committe, and partly because of Mayor Ken Livingstone's historic speech, which surgically triggered exactly the right emotions, but mostly because London is the most inclusive, welcoming city in the world. In London you can call yourself a Londoner after living here a year. Nowhere else. Yesterday was a gross betrayal, and the reaction is genuine and loud and we mean it.
The pay-off is that London is now the capital of the world. Britain's long search for a new multi-cultural, post-imperial identity is over. 'We Are All Londoners Now'. We are the senior member of The Black Ribbon Club. New York, Madrid and Istanbul and Bali were more bloody, but only in London was the very spirit of the city felt to be under attack. And that was partly down to pure dumb luck.
The next 7 years will see London's international profile grow even more. Culminating in Lord Blair, Sir Ken Livingstone, Lord Geldof, prime Minister Brown and King Charles seated next to each other at the 2012 opening ceremony.
We seem to have become the icon of resistance to global jihad, and we love it. Making these games happen will be portrayed as throwing down the gauntlet to the anti-materialist froces of evil. It will bring us a lot of attention and a lot of commerce but it will make us a target for further terrorism.
Gallant Little Britain is a noble thing to be, but what's the plan exactly? How long do we have to man this post?
Might it not be better to harness the international wave of goodwill to a constructive path forward, rather than use it as a justification of further ... what exactly? Who do we bomb? Tell me - I'm tempted to say I'll bomb them myself if it means and end to this horror.
The West blew the same sort of opportunity after 9/11, is this a second chance. By chance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Livingstone, mayor of London 8/7/05
Pure and utter defiance is the most economic way of decribing it.
It has given Britain an entirely new global identity. One it has been long searching for.
What role goes with that identity we have yet to see, but the direction we take will depend on who gains control of this new identity, the nostalgics who would use it to re-enact a Battle Of Britain fantasy of the past and invoke and impose their version of the Dunkirk Spirit, or those who would try to direct this momentum in a progressive direction.
Bob Geldof Vs Rupert Murdoch, if you like.
As for yesterday, it's becoming clear that the bombers got it so so wrong.
The bombs went off at the wrong psychological moment, when London was at it's warmest and most unified. As a consequence, yesterday's bombs were seen as particularly spiteful, fun-hating act. An attempt to snatch away innocent joy as well as lives.
The reaction has therefore been a loud 'How dare you.'
It wasn't their fault, but if on Wednesday, Paris had been awarded the Olympic Games, London would not be on the high it is today. The bombers have failed. Partly because of 4 votes of the Olympic committe, and partly because of Mayor Ken Livingstone's historic speech, which surgically triggered exactly the right emotions, but mostly because London is the most inclusive, welcoming city in the world. In London you can call yourself a Londoner after living here a year. Nowhere else. Yesterday was a gross betrayal, and the reaction is genuine and loud and we mean it.
The pay-off is that London is now the capital of the world. Britain's long search for a new multi-cultural, post-imperial identity is over. 'We Are All Londoners Now'. We are the senior member of The Black Ribbon Club. New York, Madrid and Istanbul and Bali were more bloody, but only in London was the very spirit of the city felt to be under attack. And that was partly down to pure dumb luck.
The next 7 years will see London's international profile grow even more. Culminating in Lord Blair, Sir Ken Livingstone, Lord Geldof, prime Minister Brown and King Charles seated next to each other at the 2012 opening ceremony.
We seem to have become the icon of resistance to global jihad, and we love it. Making these games happen will be portrayed as throwing down the gauntlet to the anti-materialist froces of evil. It will bring us a lot of attention and a lot of commerce but it will make us a target for further terrorism.
Gallant Little Britain is a noble thing to be, but what's the plan exactly? How long do we have to man this post?
Might it not be better to harness the international wave of goodwill to a constructive path forward, rather than use it as a justification of further ... what exactly? Who do we bomb? Tell me - I'm tempted to say I'll bomb them myself if it means and end to this horror.
The West blew the same sort of opportunity after 9/11, is this a second chance. By chance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Livingstone, mayor of London 8/7/05
"Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.
I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.
In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."
London 7/7
London will heal this wound as readily as a jellyfish or ants nest. There will be a period of Dunkirk Spirit and international idolisation. London this week feels like the centre of the universe, the world is saying 'We Are All Londoners Now'.
So perversely, today could actually benefit the tourist industry in the long term. The long lost sense of British identity is being refurbished, again in the trappings of war. And this media creation, mixed with the gathering climax of the Olympics, will create a very marketable cocktail. London's image has never been higher. It will be the coolest place to be for the next few years at least.
It must be very strange to try and maintain a belief in the military solution after today. The strategy obviously hasn't worked, and shows no sign of working. So the answer must either be much more of the same and fast, or go back to the drawing board.
More of the Same implies two things.
Either that London has now had its big attack, and that the murder will move on to Rome or Paris like some latter day Curse of the Firstborn. The suspense is over. New York, Istanbul, Bali, Madrid all paid their forfeit in the War against Terror, and today London did the same and is now, like the rest, in some way immunised from further attack. And so, employing a failed strategy doesn't really matter in our case.
Or that this is a permanent state of affairs which we will have to learn to like. In which case, employing a failed strategy is all we can do to even begin to control the situation. Which in turn means that there are so many people out there who hate us that we are condemned to live in fear and constant suspicion of anyone we don't know. In Terror even. Which means, presumably, that the Terrorists have won.
Which will be a terrible insult to the real heroism of real Londoners today.
'Resolution' until we 'Prevail' is not a viable strategy. Hopefully, the G8 leaders will now begin to realise that an industrial bureacracy like Britain cannot fight a mystical sect like Neo Islamicism. The purposes of the two barely intersect. It is like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitoes with a chainsaw.
So perversely, today could actually benefit the tourist industry in the long term. The long lost sense of British identity is being refurbished, again in the trappings of war. And this media creation, mixed with the gathering climax of the Olympics, will create a very marketable cocktail. London's image has never been higher. It will be the coolest place to be for the next few years at least.
It must be very strange to try and maintain a belief in the military solution after today. The strategy obviously hasn't worked, and shows no sign of working. So the answer must either be much more of the same and fast, or go back to the drawing board.
More of the Same implies two things.
Either that London has now had its big attack, and that the murder will move on to Rome or Paris like some latter day Curse of the Firstborn. The suspense is over. New York, Istanbul, Bali, Madrid all paid their forfeit in the War against Terror, and today London did the same and is now, like the rest, in some way immunised from further attack. And so, employing a failed strategy doesn't really matter in our case.
Or that this is a permanent state of affairs which we will have to learn to like. In which case, employing a failed strategy is all we can do to even begin to control the situation. Which in turn means that there are so many people out there who hate us that we are condemned to live in fear and constant suspicion of anyone we don't know. In Terror even. Which means, presumably, that the Terrorists have won.
Which will be a terrible insult to the real heroism of real Londoners today.
'Resolution' until we 'Prevail' is not a viable strategy. Hopefully, the G8 leaders will now begin to realise that an industrial bureacracy like Britain cannot fight a mystical sect like Neo Islamicism. The purposes of the two barely intersect. It is like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitoes with a chainsaw.
6/30/2005
The Curiously Engaging Mark Steel
Mark Steel Lectures
If you want a vision of light entertainment in a future socialist society, look no further. And a wonderful vision it is. Intelligent, funny, fascinating. Ordinary words for Lord Reith's Brief.
There has never, as far as I remember, been any serious coverage of the General Strike and the remarkable stories of courage and community-building that it generated. Nothing about the self-help systems developed by the trades unions to provide hospitals and libraries for their communities. Nothing about what it was actually like to work down a mine or in the shipyards. Except of course in the darkest recesses of the night on the Open University. The alternative media universe.
In fact, if you look for the working class in the British media all you find is a hole. Apart from the criminals and servant classes, who can be relied upon to be either scary or funny as the case demands. Bill Sykes or Sam Weller. That is the working class spectrum which is palatable to the British public, as far as the programmers are concerned.
Needless to say, conventional, suicidal economic theory gets more than its fair share of sympathetic media exposure. In spite of the fact that this country as we know it was created out of the actions of self-confessed socialists like Aneurin Bevan and (in wartime) Winston Churchill of course - one of the secret saints of socialism.
It's totally appropriate to honour that heritage, and its consequences for a sustainable future. What would the tories have, the riveting life story of Julian Amery in twelve parts with commemorative plate to hang on the wall? It's interesting that when socialists are confident or (worse) convincing and entertaining in their beliefs, they are always branded 'strident' and 'boring' by the right. That is a sure sign that they are doing the job properly.
If you want a vision of light entertainment in a future socialist society, look no further. And a wonderful vision it is. Intelligent, funny, fascinating. Ordinary words for Lord Reith's Brief.
The challenge for the BBC is to see off those jackals like Murdoch and the rest of the pillagers of our cultural heritage for good and return to us, the British people, some of the family silver which has been pawned over the years.
British TV is in trouble, sliding towards Tennessee trailer trash prolefeed with every line of coke snorted by the contemptuous programmers. The suburban squealers about the licence fee are being conned by the commercial sector not the BBC. Most of the national sporting events, for instance, which I took for granted as a boy are now exclusive delicacies available only to those willing to make Rupert Murdoch richer.
British TV is in trouble, sliding towards Tennessee trailer trash prolefeed with every line of coke snorted by the contemptuous programmers. The suburban squealers about the licence fee are being conned by the commercial sector not the BBC. Most of the national sporting events, for instance, which I took for granted as a boy are now exclusive delicacies available only to those willing to make Rupert Murdoch richer.
The paltry whingeing about 'the iniquity of the illegal licence fee... taking the bread out of pensioners mouths..' and all the rest of it completely fails to address the fact that without the BBC setting some sort of standards in this country, we would have american TV. Anyone who's ever watched American TV will know. It's simply not TV as we know it. It is a Kay's catalogue in comparison with our (flawed) Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
And yet, the people who objected strongly to BBC2 when it was launched are still out there it seems. And always the same whinges: 'Total waste of the licence fee.' 'Trendy left wing nonsense.' 'The end of civilisation as we know it.' Whereas in fact, BBC2 was one of the things which helped save British culture from the sabotage of the Thatcher years, fighting a rearguard action (with channel4) for stimulating, imaginative television in the face of the overwhelming Pap pressure exerted by the Tunbridge Wells Militia who thought their day had come and that Vera Lynn and Fanny Cradock would return to dominate our screens forever and ever. That Mary Whitehouse would be made DG.
And yet, the people who objected strongly to BBC2 when it was launched are still out there it seems. And always the same whinges: 'Total waste of the licence fee.' 'Trendy left wing nonsense.' 'The end of civilisation as we know it.' Whereas in fact, BBC2 was one of the things which helped save British culture from the sabotage of the Thatcher years, fighting a rearguard action (with channel4) for stimulating, imaginative television in the face of the overwhelming Pap pressure exerted by the Tunbridge Wells Militia who thought their day had come and that Vera Lynn and Fanny Cradock would return to dominate our screens forever and ever. That Mary Whitehouse would be made DG.
Commercial TV is undoubtedly a constant lie. The act of cutting a film - or even a 20 minute masterpiece like The Simpsons - into tripes in order to sell cheap toasters or reconstituted animal fat in its many forms, is an appalling act of Philistinism, and positively harmful to any growing mind. The purveyors of Mary Whitehouse's ideals should be getting angry at the commercial alienation of children from their parents, prettily euphemised as 'pester-power', the squalid exploitation of children's ability to make their parents lives hell if they want to. They should line up with the Scandinavian countries that have banned children's advertising as dangerous to young minds. Everything I've seen transferred from BBC4 has been a sort of blessed relief from the mindless dross now masquerading as TV.
As for those who complain that comedy is now 'too political' - If they don't like political points, why do they make them? There is no such thing as a 'politics-free' lecture. Mark Steels take on Darwin is a case in point.
As for those who complain that comedy is now 'too political' - If they don't like political points, why do they make them? There is no such thing as a 'politics-free' lecture. Mark Steels take on Darwin is a case in point.
Darwin's ideas have to be aired because there are morons out there who will tell you that all science is nonsense, and that the only truth lies between the covers of a much-translated set of fairy tales from the Bronze Age proto-civilisations of the middle east. That's why it needs someone with the guts of Mark Steel to talk about ideas. But sadly, the right wing only wants the BBC to cndemn ideas it disagrees with. Mainly because. as a political 'movement' it is totally devoid of anything which can rightly be called an idea.
What the right has is a back-brain, instincts of the most reptilian kind, which when offended causes them to react violently and blindly. And their idea of 'freedom' on TV would be to be bombarded day and night by the two right wing economic 'ideas' (1. no taxes. 2. let them eat cake!). Everywhere you look there is glaring propaganda for the consumer society. At every dangerous road junction there are forty foot high posters with naked women to distract us. Every tube station, bus stop, empty shop - virtually every vertical space is filled with the message
What the right has is a back-brain, instincts of the most reptilian kind, which when offended causes them to react violently and blindly. And their idea of 'freedom' on TV would be to be bombarded day and night by the two right wing economic 'ideas' (1. no taxes. 2. let them eat cake!). Everywhere you look there is glaring propaganda for the consumer society. At every dangerous road junction there are forty foot high posters with naked women to distract us. Every tube station, bus stop, empty shop - virtually every vertical space is filled with the message
'Obey. Conform. Consume.'In every dreary soap opera and costume drama and crime melodrama the same drab acceptance of the political status quo. The retarded inability to imagine anything better than what we have. The latest piece of David Starkey Hero-worship masquerading as history is a case in point. And whatsmore, it is anything but 'free' as is commonly believed. Advertising on TV still costs a lot of money. And someone has to pay for it. And ultimately, every cost of a product is paid by the customer. But since the cost of everything effects the cost of everything else (inflation) everyone has a share, and everyone gets to pay!
There has never, as far as I remember, been any serious coverage of the General Strike and the remarkable stories of courage and community-building that it generated. Nothing about the self-help systems developed by the trades unions to provide hospitals and libraries for their communities. Nothing about what it was actually like to work down a mine or in the shipyards. Except of course in the darkest recesses of the night on the Open University. The alternative media universe.
In fact, if you look for the working class in the British media all you find is a hole. Apart from the criminals and servant classes, who can be relied upon to be either scary or funny as the case demands. Bill Sykes or Sam Weller. That is the working class spectrum which is palatable to the British public, as far as the programmers are concerned.
Needless to say, conventional, suicidal economic theory gets more than its fair share of sympathetic media exposure. In spite of the fact that this country as we know it was created out of the actions of self-confessed socialists like Aneurin Bevan and (in wartime) Winston Churchill of course - one of the secret saints of socialism.
It's totally appropriate to honour that heritage, and its consequences for a sustainable future. What would the tories have, the riveting life story of Julian Amery in twelve parts with commemorative plate to hang on the wall? It's interesting that when socialists are confident or (worse) convincing and entertaining in their beliefs, they are always branded 'strident' and 'boring' by the right. That is a sure sign that they are doing the job properly.
6/22/2005
The Future Of TV Advertising in 1999
'DIGITAL TV CHOICE'
Tribune 1999
"The fastest generation of technological change since fire.” is how Alan McCulloch of Saatchi & Saatchi described the imminent explosion in digital communications. Richard Eyre’s “communicopia” of choice will be an empowering force for consumers, enabling them to create their own virtual TV channels, with all their favourite viewing stored ready for use whenever needed. With the marriage of delivery systems and content offered by internet convergence, ‘sit back’, one-way TV will end. People will watch what they want to watch.
Increasing numbers of media industry representatives are also predicting that the technology will soon be available to enable viewers to abolish advertising from personal schedules. They also predict that we will not be allowed to use it.
The feasibility of this ‘time-shifting’ technology is not seriously in question: “Within 2 - 3 years, using a ‘Q-Dot’ or similar recognition system.” says Nick Thomas of Bell Pottinger Good Relations (PR to Phillips electronics.)
“It is very likely that in 5-7 years advanced TV systems will include time-shifting systems.” says Mike Kroll, principal researcher in multi-media and networking at the BBC’s Bletchley Park-style research unit at Kingswood Warren in Surrey.
However, its implementation is in doubt. Ray Kelly, chair of the media policy group for the Institute for Practitioners in Advertising, injects the first note of caution:
"It should worry advertisers, but they’re not aware of the technology.”
After being made aware, David Sanderson, director of digital sales at Carlton Digital admitted that with enough take-up, ‘time-shifting’ or ‘AdZAp’ systems "could represent a major disaster, with a downward spiral in advertising revenues.” The industry would therefore “lobby very hard to prevent such a thing from happening.” After all, there would be “little justification for the industry to allow a technology which would put them out of business.”
Roy Addison of Pearson was another who didn’t believe it was “in the industry’s interests to alert the public to such a function.” From promises of limitless bounty to threats of product suppression in three easy accounting stages. In the name of free market ‘Individual Choice’ real choice for real individuals will be compromised. So new?
The Adam Smith Institute was also baffled.
“That’s quite a ‘Catch 22’” admitted their press office. Adding “The technology is almost killing itself.” The A.S.I. would certainly condemn any industry restrictions on ‘AdZAp’ as a restriction of choice, but still stuck to its principles that:
a) What’s good for industry is good for the people.
b) Industry must be allowed to defend its interests.
To add to this chaos, the argument is also re-emerging that commercials are a sort of public service. As well as being entertaining and pretty, they are also informational and educational. Mmm! Delicious AND Nutritious! “People like advertising” and “The public are too apathetic to bother creating their own schedules” I was repeatedly assured. See that Royle Family? That’s you that is.
Even more insulting, watching TV advertising is almost promoted as a civic duty. Because it promotes consumer spending, TV advertising plays a vital cohesive role in our society. Suppressing its dissemination therefore threatens the general good, and must be opposed. In the Middle Ages we had compulsory church attendance, now we have Pot Noodles.
Another defence is the ‘Right of commercial free speech’ recently cited by the advertising industry in its losing battle with the Swedish decision to ban advertising to kids.
So who would want to upset this delicate socio/economic balance by using an ‘AdZAp’ system? How would any manufacturer find a market for such a thing? By calling Alan McCulloch for a start. “I would certainly like one.” he whispered before urging the industry to adapt in order to survive. “TV advertising has to become more interactive. The agencies are failing to create new forms. Their heads are still stuck up their arses doing TV ads.”
In practice this includes abandoning the linear cinematic commercial for the computer game format. ‘Adgames’ could last as long as the player played, and could offer rewards in the form of bonus points or star prizes. The best ads would be the best games, and the ultimate game would be the one which replaced programming entirely. Which solves the problem of influencing children, but what of discriminating viewers such as Mr. McCulloch, who sees “the clever techniques used to influence children” at first hand and therefore appreciates the “very strong case for restricting children’s advertising.”?
And what of the Consumer Society agnostics? The ones who caused all that fuss in Seattle. How will they be prevented from getting the TV they want?
Amid the confusion two things are absolutely clear. Firstly, future TiVo systems and internet bandwidths will make independence from corporate TV scheduling achievable to those who want it. And secondly: if fire has indeed been rediscovered then we must play with it. The woolly mammoths of the media industry would rather we stayed shivering in our caves, but this is just as unlikely now as it was the first time around.
In future the media industry will have to cater for an audience which increasingly knows what it wants, and which has the technology to get it. Java based Software plug-ins such as AdZap will be available (probably free) via the internet, downloading them to your home terminal will be the work of a few minutes, and once there they will work invisibly to remove advertising, or any other definable content. And let’s face it, who would miss it? Then who would pay for it? And how would the companies which depend on it survive?
It would seem that the industry is faced with as many threats as opportunities. It will also have to deal on level terms with human emotions which until now it has merely exploited. Consumers will be aware of the power at their disposal, and very aware of when it is denied them.
In this new buyer’s market for tv, suckers will become clients, with corresponding expectations of service. The one-way, intrusive TV commercial - cheeky monkeys, supermodels, soap-opera plots and all - looks doomed in a market which doesn’t want its' films interrupted every twenty minutes by images of supermodels in flourescent underwear. The difficulty is that the evangelists of the free market, those who think the BBC is ‘pure socialism’, may find the consequences of a genuinely free market in TV too much to allow. Amid the blur of the digital revolution, some things never change. If Tony Blair wants to ‘root out reactonary elements’, he should look no further than his new friends in the media industry.
•••
Addendum. 23/10/08
'Will Ad-Skipping Kill Television?'
Tribune 1999
"The fastest generation of technological change since fire.” is how Alan McCulloch of Saatchi & Saatchi described the imminent explosion in digital communications. Richard Eyre’s “communicopia” of choice will be an empowering force for consumers, enabling them to create their own virtual TV channels, with all their favourite viewing stored ready for use whenever needed. With the marriage of delivery systems and content offered by internet convergence, ‘sit back’, one-way TV will end. People will watch what they want to watch.
Increasing numbers of media industry representatives are also predicting that the technology will soon be available to enable viewers to abolish advertising from personal schedules. They also predict that we will not be allowed to use it.
The feasibility of this ‘time-shifting’ technology is not seriously in question: “Within 2 - 3 years, using a ‘Q-Dot’ or similar recognition system.” says Nick Thomas of Bell Pottinger Good Relations (PR to Phillips electronics.)
“It is very likely that in 5-7 years advanced TV systems will include time-shifting systems.” says Mike Kroll, principal researcher in multi-media and networking at the BBC’s Bletchley Park-style research unit at Kingswood Warren in Surrey.
However, its implementation is in doubt. Ray Kelly, chair of the media policy group for the Institute for Practitioners in Advertising, injects the first note of caution:
"It should worry advertisers, but they’re not aware of the technology.”
After being made aware, David Sanderson, director of digital sales at Carlton Digital admitted that with enough take-up, ‘time-shifting’ or ‘AdZAp’ systems "could represent a major disaster, with a downward spiral in advertising revenues.” The industry would therefore “lobby very hard to prevent such a thing from happening.” After all, there would be “little justification for the industry to allow a technology which would put them out of business.”
Roy Addison of Pearson was another who didn’t believe it was “in the industry’s interests to alert the public to such a function.” From promises of limitless bounty to threats of product suppression in three easy accounting stages. In the name of free market ‘Individual Choice’ real choice for real individuals will be compromised. So new?
The Adam Smith Institute was also baffled.
“That’s quite a ‘Catch 22’” admitted their press office. Adding “The technology is almost killing itself.” The A.S.I. would certainly condemn any industry restrictions on ‘AdZAp’ as a restriction of choice, but still stuck to its principles that:
a) What’s good for industry is good for the people.
b) Industry must be allowed to defend its interests.
To add to this chaos, the argument is also re-emerging that commercials are a sort of public service. As well as being entertaining and pretty, they are also informational and educational. Mmm! Delicious AND Nutritious! “People like advertising” and “The public are too apathetic to bother creating their own schedules” I was repeatedly assured. See that Royle Family? That’s you that is.
Even more insulting, watching TV advertising is almost promoted as a civic duty. Because it promotes consumer spending, TV advertising plays a vital cohesive role in our society. Suppressing its dissemination therefore threatens the general good, and must be opposed. In the Middle Ages we had compulsory church attendance, now we have Pot Noodles.
Another defence is the ‘Right of commercial free speech’ recently cited by the advertising industry in its losing battle with the Swedish decision to ban advertising to kids.
So who would want to upset this delicate socio/economic balance by using an ‘AdZAp’ system? How would any manufacturer find a market for such a thing? By calling Alan McCulloch for a start. “I would certainly like one.” he whispered before urging the industry to adapt in order to survive. “TV advertising has to become more interactive. The agencies are failing to create new forms. Their heads are still stuck up their arses doing TV ads.”
In practice this includes abandoning the linear cinematic commercial for the computer game format. ‘Adgames’ could last as long as the player played, and could offer rewards in the form of bonus points or star prizes. The best ads would be the best games, and the ultimate game would be the one which replaced programming entirely. Which solves the problem of influencing children, but what of discriminating viewers such as Mr. McCulloch, who sees “the clever techniques used to influence children” at first hand and therefore appreciates the “very strong case for restricting children’s advertising.”?
And what of the Consumer Society agnostics? The ones who caused all that fuss in Seattle. How will they be prevented from getting the TV they want?
Amid the confusion two things are absolutely clear. Firstly, future TiVo systems and internet bandwidths will make independence from corporate TV scheduling achievable to those who want it. And secondly: if fire has indeed been rediscovered then we must play with it. The woolly mammoths of the media industry would rather we stayed shivering in our caves, but this is just as unlikely now as it was the first time around.
In future the media industry will have to cater for an audience which increasingly knows what it wants, and which has the technology to get it. Java based Software plug-ins such as AdZap will be available (probably free) via the internet, downloading them to your home terminal will be the work of a few minutes, and once there they will work invisibly to remove advertising, or any other definable content. And let’s face it, who would miss it? Then who would pay for it? And how would the companies which depend on it survive?
It would seem that the industry is faced with as many threats as opportunities. It will also have to deal on level terms with human emotions which until now it has merely exploited. Consumers will be aware of the power at their disposal, and very aware of when it is denied them.
In this new buyer’s market for tv, suckers will become clients, with corresponding expectations of service. The one-way, intrusive TV commercial - cheeky monkeys, supermodels, soap-opera plots and all - looks doomed in a market which doesn’t want its' films interrupted every twenty minutes by images of supermodels in flourescent underwear. The difficulty is that the evangelists of the free market, those who think the BBC is ‘pure socialism’, may find the consequences of a genuinely free market in TV too much to allow. Amid the blur of the digital revolution, some things never change. If Tony Blair wants to ‘root out reactonary elements’, he should look no further than his new friends in the media industry.
•••
Addendum. 23/10/08
'Will Ad-Skipping Kill Television?'
5/28/2005
I.D. CARDS. £100 to Exist? 'Pay to Be'? On Yer Bike.
Little Richardjohn - 1043rd post - 26 May 2005 12:41
Or maybe good value for money? Does it include some form of guarantee? After all, they say in a few years we'll be able to live forever, so why not go the whole hog, charge a grand and throw in immortality as part of the deal? Amalgamate the Pensions and Insurance industry into a vast FutureCare System for those who can afford it, who would presumably EAT those who couldn't.
Makes as much sense as expecting people to Pay to Be.
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE public enemy #2 M - 102nd post - 26 May 2005 12:49
Hi Little Richardjohn, If you think about it in another way, most people pay income, NI and council tax, that's kind of payment to exist/be already! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Little Richardjohn - 1044th post - 26 May 2005 12:55
Or looking at it yet another way, this is just another rip-off designed to make the government look tough. It's sunk. As soon as people realise the cost, it's over.
Now if they were to simply combine the ID idea with the BBC licence fee...
NOW you're talking. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE frankacne - 150th post - 26 May 2005 14:48
Yes i agree, as a radio listener without a TV i long ago realised when i got blizzards of paper from the TV licensing authority that not owning a TV at all was obviously (at least to them) an indication of covert Terrorist, drug-pushing, money-laundering activity. presumably the Bill will soon be stopping me and asking to see my TV license, woe onto me if i cannot produce it. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Little Richardjohn - 1054th post - 26 May 2005 16:17
I can see the slogan: 'What's Good For Me Is Good For The BBC. Get An Identity!'
possibly chanted by some dreary hip hop band from cheltenham.
Football-commentator ironic that the organisation which has been the British collective Identity for the past 50 years should become the badge of individual identity.
Appropriate enough. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Don Glen - 3087th post - 26 May 2005 16:45
You've got a point there,L.R. I have no particular objection to carrying an identity card; it's just one more of a number of similar documentation that the average Joe carries already. But I DO object to paying £100 for the privilege, and I will NOT voluntarily pay this fee. Unfortunately, the draft legislation provides for a fine of up to £2500 for failure to obtain a card, when they eventually become compulsory. You can't win!! [reply] [Complain about this post]
Or maybe good value for money? Does it include some form of guarantee? After all, they say in a few years we'll be able to live forever, so why not go the whole hog, charge a grand and throw in immortality as part of the deal? Amalgamate the Pensions and Insurance industry into a vast FutureCare System for those who can afford it, who would presumably EAT those who couldn't.
Makes as much sense as expecting people to Pay to Be.
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE public enemy #2 M - 102nd post - 26 May 2005 12:49
Hi Little Richardjohn, If you think about it in another way, most people pay income, NI and council tax, that's kind of payment to exist/be already! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Little Richardjohn - 1044th post - 26 May 2005 12:55
Or looking at it yet another way, this is just another rip-off designed to make the government look tough. It's sunk. As soon as people realise the cost, it's over.
Now if they were to simply combine the ID idea with the BBC licence fee...
NOW you're talking. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE frankacne - 150th post - 26 May 2005 14:48
Yes i agree, as a radio listener without a TV i long ago realised when i got blizzards of paper from the TV licensing authority that not owning a TV at all was obviously (at least to them) an indication of covert Terrorist, drug-pushing, money-laundering activity. presumably the Bill will soon be stopping me and asking to see my TV license, woe onto me if i cannot produce it. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Little Richardjohn - 1054th post - 26 May 2005 16:17
I can see the slogan: 'What's Good For Me Is Good For The BBC. Get An Identity!'
possibly chanted by some dreary hip hop band from cheltenham.
Football-commentator ironic that the organisation which has been the British collective Identity for the past 50 years should become the badge of individual identity.
Appropriate enough. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: £100 TO EXIST? - ON YER BIKE Don Glen - 3087th post - 26 May 2005 16:45
You've got a point there,L.R. I have no particular objection to carrying an identity card; it's just one more of a number of similar documentation that the average Joe carries already. But I DO object to paying £100 for the privilege, and I will NOT voluntarily pay this fee. Unfortunately, the draft legislation provides for a fine of up to £2500 for failure to obtain a card, when they eventually become compulsory. You can't win!! [reply] [Complain about this post]
BBC PSEUDO SCIENCE
Professor Spivey's 'Art On Earth' or whatever it was called.
Little Richardjohn - 11:07pm May 13, 2005 BST (#1 of 12) Delete
Another tedious professor 'marvelling' at the wonders of the ancient world and telling us how stupid we are because obviously we can never recreate their glories.
'There's nothing new under the sun', and what there is was created by singular great minds thousands of years ago under conditions of extreme patronage.
Yet another cavalcade of kings and demigods with no context and no purpose.
This was trivialising on a massive scale, including half-baked scientific theories swallowed whole (talk about penguins) and the statement 'This is the greatest piece of sculpture ever.'Which is one of the silliest critical pronouncements ever made. We weren't told what the official second best is, or how many 'point' it was beaten by.
Sadly, this is no departure for the BBC's cultural output these days. All great art is the work of great minds who were ingherently superior to the rest of us and who we all follow slavishly and owe our every insight to. Everything worthwhile comes down from the top.
Nothing is given historical presence, and every myth is taken at face value. It is a stultifyingly elitist view of human creativity which the Pharoahs themselves would have approved.
The BBC should be ashamed of itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 09:51am May 14, 2005 BST (#2 of 12)
I was only sort of half-watching it whilst doing something at the computer.
I enjoyed the special fx but I suppose it was me enjoying it as chewing gum for the eyes.
I haven't been keeping up with TV shcedules so much lately (unusual for me) and I think if I had known of its impending arrival and I had been given to understand it was the new Civilisation or something I would probably thought it was a load of shallow guff.
But happening to see it by accident I was quite taken by the snippets I saw.
Of course, if you're saying it's inaccuarte, then I'm not educated enough to know I was being misinformed and that would be a different matter.
I'd definitely consider writing to the programme makers if you feel so strongly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 11:49am May 14, 2005 BST (#3 of 12) Delete
It's not a question of historical accuracy or scholarship, but merely the poverty of the BBC's 'Pageant of Hisatory' approach. Henry XV111th for instance, single-handedly changed Britain forever. Without his personal intervention, we wouldn't have Nectar points, the Curly-Wurly or the rotary can opener.
And then we have the bleedin Pharoahs. A master race so sure of their theology that they put burglar alarms on their graves. They invented everything. Without them, we wouldn't have henry, and so it goes. Nothing we do now makes any difference, so why do anything? It is a totally reactionary agenda, and fit only for the nursery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 12:29pm May 14, 2005 BST (#4 of 12)
My immediate thought is that without that kind of shorthand they programme would get too bogged down.
How would you resolve that problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 02:57pm May 15, 2005 BST (#5 of 12) Delete
Bronowski done it. Why not this bunch of Culture-Lite chinless wonders?
A new Bronowski, with his dedication to material causation is what we need.
They bung his series out occasionally at four in the morning on the OU. They're ashamed of it. It shows up their glaring failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 05:42pm May 19, 2005 BST (#6 of 12)
I watched the other episode with the flashing goggles etc. What a load of old bollocks.
If you wrote down the information content (ie, saw the script) the amount of factual content you're asked to digest is negligible, isn't it?
There was a ludicrous ten minutes or so where he starts by saying:
"So, why was it, after being obsessed with images for thousands of years, man forgot them...?"
He then prattles on pointlessly for 8 minutes, to conclude:
"So, in fact, man *didn't* forget images at all."
WELL NOBODY BUT YOU SAID THEY HAD YOU CUNT! I WASN'T SITTING HERE THINKING THEY HAD! UNTIL YOU SAID THEY HAD! NOW YOU'RE SAYING THEY HADN'T! FUCK OFF YOU MIND-FUCKING FUCK!
So, I agree. The programme is pants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 08:33pm May 19, 2005 BST (#7 of 12) Delete
This is the worst documentary programme ever made.
Possibly the worst programme of any kind.
Not only scores a pencil-in-the-eye rating for being patronizing, but it insists that everything - all human civilisation - is the result of religious devotion and its marketing machine.
It's an outrageous bit of opportunism riding on religious hysteria.
Priests invented agriculture - to feed the faithful temple builders slaving away devotedly in the blazing sun?!
I mean, you would, wouldn't you.
"Some kind of scene happenning over in the mountains, they want us to salve away most of our adult lives on some big stones, fancy? Leave the family, it's this new thing - 'holy' they said. All the rage now apparently. So the family will be taken care of, they said. What'll we eat? They say they're working on something, bits of grass, something.
Look, you've eaten grass before... I know you're not a goat. Look do you fancy it or not, they say there'll be nekkid women. Tommorrow then? Your donkey or mine?"
It is SUCH bollox it goes right off the meter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 02:20am May 20, 2005 BST (#8 of 12)
And there's a problem, on all channels, with programmes that go into history where it is difficult to show (in the strict visual sense) what is being conveyed in the narration.
So, you get these hour long documentaries, with very thin content and - due to a low budget - you have a blurred handycam shot of a spinning chariot wheel cut in every 5 minutes.
Or the same forlorn actor hoves into view, charging with a sword every time a bit of aggression is mentioned.
Rostrum cameras pan slowly over candle-lit parchment - probably not an actual bit of parchment saying anything actually involved with what the narrator is saying, but who will know? It fills up the screen 'n' looks luvverly, dunnit?
So, yeah, I agree with your exasperation, though I'm probably not wise enough to identify this feudal seam you've found them mining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 04:23pm May 20, 2005 BST (#9 of 12) Delete
Yup. It's big, it's ugly, it's flashy, it's still here - must be a temple.
Pathetic.
Well I say the stone circles in Turkey are the remains of the first Lap-dancing joint.
Why? Because they are. The Spiv doesn't offer much more evidence than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zozimus - 01:49am May 28, 2005 BST (#10 of 12)
It's poor. There should be a health warning on the screen at all times during the transmission of tendentious programs like these. It's what they do when reports from partisan sources are labelled "so-and-so propaganda film" in one corner of the screen.
Bronowski's series was superb. When it was first shown it filled our conversations and each episode was watched with fascination and respect. But maybe no art can be sustained at the highest level continuously, and if there are bound to be mediocrities then here they all come, like buses in convoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 12:23pm May 28, 2005 BST (#11 of 12) Delete
Remember the scene in Ascent where the nomadic tribe leave the old man behind to die because he was too old to ford the river that year?
Meanwhile, the adolescent boys are undergoing a Rite of Passsage by fording the river for the first time unaided.
With the old man watching from the bank, knowing he is going to die.
Now THAT'S TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zozimus - 04:50pm May 28, 2005 BST (#12 of 12)
Yes, and Bronowski on his knees in the mud of Auschwitz, grappling with the mud in his hands and quoting, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'
Little Richardjohn - 11:07pm May 13, 2005 BST (#1 of 12) Delete
Another tedious professor 'marvelling' at the wonders of the ancient world and telling us how stupid we are because obviously we can never recreate their glories.
'There's nothing new under the sun', and what there is was created by singular great minds thousands of years ago under conditions of extreme patronage.
"Once when midnight smote the airNot a word about the scientific, economic and climatic conditions that fed into the art of the past. The need to exaggerate, it seems, is 'hard-wired, because we are just penguins with thumbs, and that accounts for our need to express ourselves visually.
And eunuchs ran through Hell and met
On every crowded street to stare
Upon Great Juan riding by;
Even like these to rail and sweat,
Staring upon his sinewy thigh."
Yet another cavalcade of kings and demigods with no context and no purpose.
This was trivialising on a massive scale, including half-baked scientific theories swallowed whole (talk about penguins) and the statement 'This is the greatest piece of sculpture ever.'Which is one of the silliest critical pronouncements ever made. We weren't told what the official second best is, or how many 'point' it was beaten by.
Sadly, this is no departure for the BBC's cultural output these days. All great art is the work of great minds who were ingherently superior to the rest of us and who we all follow slavishly and owe our every insight to. Everything worthwhile comes down from the top.
Nothing is given historical presence, and every myth is taken at face value. It is a stultifyingly elitist view of human creativity which the Pharoahs themselves would have approved.
The BBC should be ashamed of itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 09:51am May 14, 2005 BST (#2 of 12)
I was only sort of half-watching it whilst doing something at the computer.
I enjoyed the special fx but I suppose it was me enjoying it as chewing gum for the eyes.
I haven't been keeping up with TV shcedules so much lately (unusual for me) and I think if I had known of its impending arrival and I had been given to understand it was the new Civilisation or something I would probably thought it was a load of shallow guff.
But happening to see it by accident I was quite taken by the snippets I saw.
Of course, if you're saying it's inaccuarte, then I'm not educated enough to know I was being misinformed and that would be a different matter.
I'd definitely consider writing to the programme makers if you feel so strongly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 11:49am May 14, 2005 BST (#3 of 12) Delete
It's not a question of historical accuracy or scholarship, but merely the poverty of the BBC's 'Pageant of Hisatory' approach. Henry XV111th for instance, single-handedly changed Britain forever. Without his personal intervention, we wouldn't have Nectar points, the Curly-Wurly or the rotary can opener.
And then we have the bleedin Pharoahs. A master race so sure of their theology that they put burglar alarms on their graves. They invented everything. Without them, we wouldn't have henry, and so it goes. Nothing we do now makes any difference, so why do anything? It is a totally reactionary agenda, and fit only for the nursery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 12:29pm May 14, 2005 BST (#4 of 12)
My immediate thought is that without that kind of shorthand they programme would get too bogged down.
How would you resolve that problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 02:57pm May 15, 2005 BST (#5 of 12) Delete
Bronowski done it. Why not this bunch of Culture-Lite chinless wonders?
A new Bronowski, with his dedication to material causation is what we need.
They bung his series out occasionally at four in the morning on the OU. They're ashamed of it. It shows up their glaring failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 05:42pm May 19, 2005 BST (#6 of 12)
I watched the other episode with the flashing goggles etc. What a load of old bollocks.
If you wrote down the information content (ie, saw the script) the amount of factual content you're asked to digest is negligible, isn't it?
There was a ludicrous ten minutes or so where he starts by saying:
"So, why was it, after being obsessed with images for thousands of years, man forgot them...?"
He then prattles on pointlessly for 8 minutes, to conclude:
"So, in fact, man *didn't* forget images at all."
WELL NOBODY BUT YOU SAID THEY HAD YOU CUNT! I WASN'T SITTING HERE THINKING THEY HAD! UNTIL YOU SAID THEY HAD! NOW YOU'RE SAYING THEY HADN'T! FUCK OFF YOU MIND-FUCKING FUCK!
So, I agree. The programme is pants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 08:33pm May 19, 2005 BST (#7 of 12) Delete
This is the worst documentary programme ever made.
Possibly the worst programme of any kind.
Not only scores a pencil-in-the-eye rating for being patronizing, but it insists that everything - all human civilisation - is the result of religious devotion and its marketing machine.
It's an outrageous bit of opportunism riding on religious hysteria.
Priests invented agriculture - to feed the faithful temple builders slaving away devotedly in the blazing sun?!
I mean, you would, wouldn't you.
"Some kind of scene happenning over in the mountains, they want us to salve away most of our adult lives on some big stones, fancy? Leave the family, it's this new thing - 'holy' they said. All the rage now apparently. So the family will be taken care of, they said. What'll we eat? They say they're working on something, bits of grass, something.
Look, you've eaten grass before... I know you're not a goat. Look do you fancy it or not, they say there'll be nekkid women. Tommorrow then? Your donkey or mine?"
It is SUCH bollox it goes right off the meter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------xbodnotbodx - 02:20am May 20, 2005 BST (#8 of 12)
And there's a problem, on all channels, with programmes that go into history where it is difficult to show (in the strict visual sense) what is being conveyed in the narration.
So, you get these hour long documentaries, with very thin content and - due to a low budget - you have a blurred handycam shot of a spinning chariot wheel cut in every 5 minutes.
Or the same forlorn actor hoves into view, charging with a sword every time a bit of aggression is mentioned.
Rostrum cameras pan slowly over candle-lit parchment - probably not an actual bit of parchment saying anything actually involved with what the narrator is saying, but who will know? It fills up the screen 'n' looks luvverly, dunnit?
So, yeah, I agree with your exasperation, though I'm probably not wise enough to identify this feudal seam you've found them mining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 04:23pm May 20, 2005 BST (#9 of 12) Delete
Yup. It's big, it's ugly, it's flashy, it's still here - must be a temple.
Pathetic.
Well I say the stone circles in Turkey are the remains of the first Lap-dancing joint.
Why? Because they are. The Spiv doesn't offer much more evidence than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zozimus - 01:49am May 28, 2005 BST (#10 of 12)
It's poor. There should be a health warning on the screen at all times during the transmission of tendentious programs like these. It's what they do when reports from partisan sources are labelled "so-and-so propaganda film" in one corner of the screen.
Bronowski's series was superb. When it was first shown it filled our conversations and each episode was watched with fascination and respect. But maybe no art can be sustained at the highest level continuously, and if there are bound to be mediocrities then here they all come, like buses in convoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 12:23pm May 28, 2005 BST (#11 of 12) Delete
Remember the scene in Ascent where the nomadic tribe leave the old man behind to die because he was too old to ford the river that year?
Meanwhile, the adolescent boys are undergoing a Rite of Passsage by fording the river for the first time unaided.
With the old man watching from the bank, knowing he is going to die.
Now THAT'S TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zozimus - 04:50pm May 28, 2005 BST (#12 of 12)
Yes, and Bronowski on his knees in the mud of Auschwitz, grappling with the mud in his hands and quoting, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'
ORWELL RECLAMATION STAGE 1
To try to understand Orwell's relevance today, you have to 'factor in' the way the world HAS changed since he died. what he didn't know.
How does 1984 read through the filter of global warming, and globalisation in general?
Orwell was a proto-green, without any mistake. He just didn't know the science. As very few did then. And his ability to visualise the total destruction of life was limited by his economic and political background. The hardship of life under collective oligarchism never did really happen, after all.
But in spite of these shortcomings, his predictions about the psychological distortions of modern life are generally accurate.
Modern states are giant Lie-Factories. The 'Party members' of corporate consumerism (the 'stakeholders') do have to be able to deny self-evident truths and forget them or remember them on request. (technological truths Vs religious certainty in the Bush adninnystration)
Truth is constantly manipulated as never before. We are drugged and controlled with hero-worship and exhibitions of collective sadism - see any Hollywood film - 'No Orchids for Miss Blandish'?
People are disappearing in the night and being reduced to jibbering wrecks who will confess anything - and believe it.
An interesting case study would be between Orwell's final vision and the early formative texts of al Qutb, founder of modern militant Islam.
The 2 visions of a robotic race, descended into a sub-human state by the machinations of a rapacious, power-mad autocracy are - amusing.
Orwell, though, provides a counter - vision (Lion & The Unicorn and every line he wrote). And whatever label you care to give it, the one thing that is clear from his writings is that it is not simply a matter of ideology, but culture, and must therefore be local in character. Any attempt to impose an incompatible set of cultural values on the British (at least) was doomed to fail.
And the second thing - 2 things, the second of the two things that are clear is that socialism is not the easy option. But given that the consumer capitalism means oblivion, it's likely that Orwell would have been as much of a socialist now as then.
His job was to uncover the Britishness at the core of socialism. To dig that truth out from under the dungheap of two centuries of abomination by the "dividend drawers" and streamlined oligarchs of monopoly capitalism.
Which is why the Right has always tried to hijack him. He is their logical key target. To make us believe that Orwell was a staunch defender of free-market capitalism would be the ultimate act of doublethink.
But then, you have to consider what sort of book lies within 1984, written by someone not suffering from a desperately depressing, debilitating disease.
There are hints of his disease in the book, after all. The 'Golden Country' does come across as someone reliving his childhood in a fever.
Orwell knew he could have written a better book healthy. Would it have been as powerful a message?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------eibeinaka - 07:16pm May 27, 2005 BST (#161 of 164)
"Orwell was a proto-green, without any mistake."
One of the most memorable things he ever wrote was an essay explaining why an inexpensive packet of flower seeds was the most glorious investment he'd ever made.
'An interesting case study would be between Orwell's final vision and the early formative texts of Qutb.'
Orwell knew he could have written a better book healthy. Would it have been as powerful a message?
It's an interesting argument. Would the book have been as grimly dystopian? When one considers how needle sharp his essays of earlier times are, a more biting savage humorous edge might have been achieved, which would have changed the character of the book.
I'll have to look in the collected letters again, but I seem to recall that he describes experimenting a bit with the tone of te book, when he first tells his correspondents the shape of what he's writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 07:29pm May 27, 2005 BST (#162 of 164) Delete But maybe he wouldn't have seen the terrible possibilities of global oligarchy. Maybe we needed him to have been depressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------cappamore - 11:24pm May 27, 2005 BST (#163 of 164)
Orwell was incredibly visionary but equally visionary were Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") and H.G. Wells ("War of the Worlds.") They all depict a future that is chilling and, I fear, true. Science fiction has gone out of fashion these days. I wonder if that is because publishers are less willing to publish the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 11:44pm May 27, 2005 BST (#164 of 164) Delete
I blame the more metaphysical tendencies of Quantum Mechanics for that.
Something which, inevitably, O'Brien brags about in room 101.
There are many futurologists whose predictions were proved more materially accurate. (I daresay) but I don't know of any who examined the psychology so thoroughly and communicated it so compellingly. Until perhaps Heller, that is.
Catch 22 and doublethink are almost twins. In fact, 'Catch22' is a depiction of a totalitarian state executed by someone with enough leisure and comfort to be able to use humour to make the terror seem worse.
Orwell was never in a position to write a book like that.
Does anyone have any Heller quotes on Orwell?
How does 1984 read through the filter of global warming, and globalisation in general?
Orwell was a proto-green, without any mistake. He just didn't know the science. As very few did then. And his ability to visualise the total destruction of life was limited by his economic and political background. The hardship of life under collective oligarchism never did really happen, after all.
But in spite of these shortcomings, his predictions about the psychological distortions of modern life are generally accurate.
Modern states are giant Lie-Factories. The 'Party members' of corporate consumerism (the 'stakeholders') do have to be able to deny self-evident truths and forget them or remember them on request. (technological truths Vs religious certainty in the Bush adninnystration)
Truth is constantly manipulated as never before. We are drugged and controlled with hero-worship and exhibitions of collective sadism - see any Hollywood film - 'No Orchids for Miss Blandish'?
People are disappearing in the night and being reduced to jibbering wrecks who will confess anything - and believe it.
An interesting case study would be between Orwell's final vision and the early formative texts of al Qutb, founder of modern militant Islam.
The 2 visions of a robotic race, descended into a sub-human state by the machinations of a rapacious, power-mad autocracy are - amusing.
Orwell, though, provides a counter - vision (Lion & The Unicorn and every line he wrote). And whatever label you care to give it, the one thing that is clear from his writings is that it is not simply a matter of ideology, but culture, and must therefore be local in character. Any attempt to impose an incompatible set of cultural values on the British (at least) was doomed to fail.
And the second thing - 2 things, the second of the two things that are clear is that socialism is not the easy option. But given that the consumer capitalism means oblivion, it's likely that Orwell would have been as much of a socialist now as then.
His job was to uncover the Britishness at the core of socialism. To dig that truth out from under the dungheap of two centuries of abomination by the "dividend drawers" and streamlined oligarchs of monopoly capitalism.
Which is why the Right has always tried to hijack him. He is their logical key target. To make us believe that Orwell was a staunch defender of free-market capitalism would be the ultimate act of doublethink.
But then, you have to consider what sort of book lies within 1984, written by someone not suffering from a desperately depressing, debilitating disease.
There are hints of his disease in the book, after all. The 'Golden Country' does come across as someone reliving his childhood in a fever.
Orwell knew he could have written a better book healthy. Would it have been as powerful a message?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------eibeinaka - 07:16pm May 27, 2005 BST (#161 of 164)
"Orwell was a proto-green, without any mistake."
One of the most memorable things he ever wrote was an essay explaining why an inexpensive packet of flower seeds was the most glorious investment he'd ever made.
'An interesting case study would be between Orwell's final vision and the early formative texts of Qutb.'
Orwell knew he could have written a better book healthy. Would it have been as powerful a message?
It's an interesting argument. Would the book have been as grimly dystopian? When one considers how needle sharp his essays of earlier times are, a more biting savage humorous edge might have been achieved, which would have changed the character of the book.
I'll have to look in the collected letters again, but I seem to recall that he describes experimenting a bit with the tone of te book, when he first tells his correspondents the shape of what he's writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 07:29pm May 27, 2005 BST (#162 of 164) Delete But maybe he wouldn't have seen the terrible possibilities of global oligarchy. Maybe we needed him to have been depressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------cappamore - 11:24pm May 27, 2005 BST (#163 of 164)
Orwell was incredibly visionary but equally visionary were Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") and H.G. Wells ("War of the Worlds.") They all depict a future that is chilling and, I fear, true. Science fiction has gone out of fashion these days. I wonder if that is because publishers are less willing to publish the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Little Richardjohn - 11:44pm May 27, 2005 BST (#164 of 164) Delete
I blame the more metaphysical tendencies of Quantum Mechanics for that.
Something which, inevitably, O'Brien brags about in room 101.
There are many futurologists whose predictions were proved more materially accurate. (I daresay) but I don't know of any who examined the psychology so thoroughly and communicated it so compellingly. Until perhaps Heller, that is.
Catch 22 and doublethink are almost twins. In fact, 'Catch22' is a depiction of a totalitarian state executed by someone with enough leisure and comfort to be able to use humour to make the terror seem worse.
Orwell was never in a position to write a book like that.
Does anyone have any Heller quotes on Orwell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)