The Media reflects but also modifies the society it mirrors. The Media can only survive and prosper if it hits the funny bone every time. So it always has concentrated on permutations of the gory, the tragic, the spectacular, the shameful, the lusting and the voyeuristic. It is just that nowadays the media has so refined its targets, honed in on our subconscious trigger, it can hit the G-spot of sensitivity each and every time. This is distorting our perception of what we are, how we respond and is leading us to adopt new attitudes that are not reflective us as people or a society. The media distortion of us and our view of our reflections is channelling our future reactions, the role model we hold and use to navigate life by.
When our favourite soap 'deals' with a difficult issue, what ever it is this time round, child abuse, family rape, racial hatred, partner beating, gang banging, let us just stop and pause for thought. They are not 'dealing with it' they are cashing in on horrendous social issues, using those issues to pull in viewers and push up their ratings. We must learn to rush to our social networks, by twitter or facebook or what ever and challenge all those simplistic, one dimensional characters and situations and scream out loud, this is not true. Life is much more complicated and convoluted. Life is not simple black and white with a single start and stop point. Protest out load that their representation is selling us and all victims, so so short. The emotional nightmare of love in jeopardy, distrust and hate cannot be conveyed by one line put downs.There is no one person walking off into the sunset or taken off to jail, or some such simple resolution. Everyone that comes into contact with the events is tainted and carry the corruption onwards about their person for years into the future and on into all their furture relationships. Get that across and then you are 'dealing with it' and doing us all a service by sharing the visceral agonies of life when it goes off the rails.
The next time we surrender to a fantasy world, to escape the gritty realities, let us hang on to some semblance of logic, connection, plausibility, some portrayal of life as all of us do experience it. As we lose ourselves in impossible relationships, gut wrenching bodies torn asunder and mechanical Armageddon, just pause and reflect you are a member of the human race that has to negioate, deal and some how live in a kind of harmony with all other humans. This is not the way life is. Again use your networks and protest out loud at all improbable, implausible plots characters and situations. Beyond your experience sure but not beyond any imagaineable reality. Escape yes but keep some semblance of realism. Keep it possible to translate back to a life we actually have to live. Ridicule plots that jump from one imponderable to another and another without any rythme or reason ever offered. Suspense, oh yes but not adondonment of all logic.
Time for us shape the media we use to reflect the society we aspire to be. Do not accept being pandered to, do not accept pap, stand up and demand to be treated as an adult going about in a adult world. Challenge all that offer anything other, use your voice.
Monday, 29 October 2012
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Keeping to Rules
Some rules such as we shall not kill one another, we shall not take what does not belong to us, we shall drive on the left and give way to the right are plain simple ways of organising ourselves so we can live together with the minimum of friction. We regard these self-imposed rules as universal, cast in stone, everyone in our society subscribes to them without question. Some where in the layers apon layers of these rules we adopt to guide our path through life we reach rules which are clearly old-fashioned and not to be followed any more, like chew each mouthful thirty times, like never go out unless properly dressed in coat or jacket and hat, like never to jump a queue or always make way for those weaker than you.
Then there are those other rules and regulations imposed on you by authority. You shall pay your TV licence, you will not drop litter, you cannot enter private property, if your tyre treads are less than that specified you will replace or risk a penalty imposed you. All sensible elaborations of our self-imposed rules which help keep the wheels we rely on turning with the minimum of friction. Even though we might chafe at the detail the general principles seems loud and clear.
To live within the protection of our society we all accept we have to surrender to authority. Go along with decisions from others on how or what we may or must do. It is accepted that we abdicate any right to decide the reasonableness, or appropriateness for ourselves. We will do as we are told, without question, without challenge. This is the proper price to be paid for living within a community that shields, protects and nurtures us all on a broadly equitable level.
We expect our leaders, those in authority over us, to be decisive even proactive, to stop wrongs and injustices occurring and to make restitution to those that have been transgressed against. Now that our leaders are chosen and require a minimal mandate from us, from time to time, they need to be seen to be effective. They need to flex their use of the powers granted them to do things, make things happen. What we end up with is a culture of knee jerk responses. Every incident that claims some notoriety must result in a counter reaction. Some new law, some new regulation has to be passed to demonstrate to all that our leaders are effective and in control.
So we live drowned in a plethora of control, rules, restrictions and sanctions, some good but by far away most, with the benefit of time, too hasty and failing to deal decisively with the issue. A deluge of rules often inconsequential, contradictory, irrational and almost all failing to connect with any universal sense of pragmatic fairness and propriety. A deluge precipitated by and drowned out by the media whipped chorus clamouring for our leaders to do some thing about some incident or other.
We humans are complex social animals. We each have our own individual take on the world. No one person sees the colour red the same as another. Enough of us can compare and agree that what we are looking at is red but the red as sensed by each of us might well be different. If we cannot have something as basic as seeing the colour red in common, what chance is there for any of us to agree on a rules which are fair and right for all of us. Society, life and us as a social organism are so complex that no sets of rules, no matter how voluminous, can ever even nearly prescribe our behaviour. Calling on our leaders to fix it is the ultimate cop out and doomed to failure.
As I have explored before in Saunter to Totalitarianism there is no substitute for each of us taking responsibility for what is going on around us. Not our current leader, not our government, not the local councillors, but us, the me. What am I going to do. If something is going on I do not like, it is for me individually or collectively with my neighbours or my community to sort it out. Not someone else, me. Not defer to some remote agency, but to get stuck in and decide an effective way to resolve the mutually agreed nuisance. Woe betide if you agree to restraints that come back to bite you. This is not a charter for vigilantes, after all a child of yours might be a culprit or victim. No just people using common sense and pragmatism to resolve issues that are pertinent to them. Learn from their mistakes and refine their conclusions next time round. So what if our nation becomes diffuse with different codes of conduct, dependant on where you are. So what if you feel out of place moving around within an new strange community. Perhaps this is right and proper that you pay attention to wishes of the community you now find yourself within. Maybe there really should be several speeds in our nation between city to town to village. Perhaps differentiation is actually the missing ingredient of what makes a community and in the end ties us together as a homogeneous society.
Then there are those other rules and regulations imposed on you by authority. You shall pay your TV licence, you will not drop litter, you cannot enter private property, if your tyre treads are less than that specified you will replace or risk a penalty imposed you. All sensible elaborations of our self-imposed rules which help keep the wheels we rely on turning with the minimum of friction. Even though we might chafe at the detail the general principles seems loud and clear.
To live within the protection of our society we all accept we have to surrender to authority. Go along with decisions from others on how or what we may or must do. It is accepted that we abdicate any right to decide the reasonableness, or appropriateness for ourselves. We will do as we are told, without question, without challenge. This is the proper price to be paid for living within a community that shields, protects and nurtures us all on a broadly equitable level.
We expect our leaders, those in authority over us, to be decisive even proactive, to stop wrongs and injustices occurring and to make restitution to those that have been transgressed against. Now that our leaders are chosen and require a minimal mandate from us, from time to time, they need to be seen to be effective. They need to flex their use of the powers granted them to do things, make things happen. What we end up with is a culture of knee jerk responses. Every incident that claims some notoriety must result in a counter reaction. Some new law, some new regulation has to be passed to demonstrate to all that our leaders are effective and in control.
So we live drowned in a plethora of control, rules, restrictions and sanctions, some good but by far away most, with the benefit of time, too hasty and failing to deal decisively with the issue. A deluge of rules often inconsequential, contradictory, irrational and almost all failing to connect with any universal sense of pragmatic fairness and propriety. A deluge precipitated by and drowned out by the media whipped chorus clamouring for our leaders to do some thing about some incident or other.
We humans are complex social animals. We each have our own individual take on the world. No one person sees the colour red the same as another. Enough of us can compare and agree that what we are looking at is red but the red as sensed by each of us might well be different. If we cannot have something as basic as seeing the colour red in common, what chance is there for any of us to agree on a rules which are fair and right for all of us. Society, life and us as a social organism are so complex that no sets of rules, no matter how voluminous, can ever even nearly prescribe our behaviour. Calling on our leaders to fix it is the ultimate cop out and doomed to failure.
As I have explored before in Saunter to Totalitarianism there is no substitute for each of us taking responsibility for what is going on around us. Not our current leader, not our government, not the local councillors, but us, the me. What am I going to do. If something is going on I do not like, it is for me individually or collectively with my neighbours or my community to sort it out. Not someone else, me. Not defer to some remote agency, but to get stuck in and decide an effective way to resolve the mutually agreed nuisance. Woe betide if you agree to restraints that come back to bite you. This is not a charter for vigilantes, after all a child of yours might be a culprit or victim. No just people using common sense and pragmatism to resolve issues that are pertinent to them. Learn from their mistakes and refine their conclusions next time round. So what if our nation becomes diffuse with different codes of conduct, dependant on where you are. So what if you feel out of place moving around within an new strange community. Perhaps this is right and proper that you pay attention to wishes of the community you now find yourself within. Maybe there really should be several speeds in our nation between city to town to village. Perhaps differentiation is actually the missing ingredient of what makes a community and in the end ties us together as a homogeneous society.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Hysteria
How many accusation's does it take to prove guilt, ten, or hundreds or thousands? Point is an accusation is just that, an accusation. Sure a hundred tend to indicate that something was not right and thousands mean that there is certainly something wrong that has taken place. So the media storm surrounding the Jimmy Saville exposure sounds as if all the accusations have been proven. He is guilty as charged, a pervert, a child abuser. It is unfortunate that he is not now with us to defend his name.
To date the accusations are just that and have yet to be examined as to their reasonableness. Before jumping in on the witch-hunt let us all just pause for a moment. Accusations come in all shades from the spurious, to the 'me to', to retrospective remorse, to the full on corroborated, clear, without a shade of doubt. Before vilifying a reputations of many decades standing it is worth pausing to check how the accusations stand up by applying all the usual standards we use when considering any serious accusation. Is there corroboration, is there a sequence and patten, what degree of abuse from the inappropriate, to the over familiar to the outright violation, was it consensual (at the time) and how plausible are the claims in all the circumstances?
What I think of the man, Jimmy Saville, does not come into it but neither do I hold a candle for Saint Jimmy. I certainly do not want to minimise the distress and years of guilt that lay behind these accusations. What we do all need and want is the full extent of the truth to come out, as best it can, after all these years. Was Saville a solo operator or did he work within a circle of similar predators? Did his fame endorse an over-familiar attitude to the young people his work put him into close contact with? Were (and are) the codes of conduct for 'famous' TV personalities robust enough to deal with the mania of groupies throwing themselves at or worse making themselves available to their target idol? How can a solo operator, or a small close knit group, operate with immunity for such a long period in such a large organisation that I suspect is riddled with gossip and innuendo. Who else knew and were complicit in his exploitation over so many years?
There is a lot more behind this story than just the vilification of a once idol to millions. Let us avoid the trap of using hindsight judgements of our sophisticated age with regard to minors, sexuality and abuse and not use them in place of the mores of twenty, thirty or even forty years ago. Be sure, place guilt where it is found, but first let us be a little circumspect with all these accusations until we better understand their strength and where they lead us.
To date the accusations are just that and have yet to be examined as to their reasonableness. Before jumping in on the witch-hunt let us all just pause for a moment. Accusations come in all shades from the spurious, to the 'me to', to retrospective remorse, to the full on corroborated, clear, without a shade of doubt. Before vilifying a reputations of many decades standing it is worth pausing to check how the accusations stand up by applying all the usual standards we use when considering any serious accusation. Is there corroboration, is there a sequence and patten, what degree of abuse from the inappropriate, to the over familiar to the outright violation, was it consensual (at the time) and how plausible are the claims in all the circumstances?
What I think of the man, Jimmy Saville, does not come into it but neither do I hold a candle for Saint Jimmy. I certainly do not want to minimise the distress and years of guilt that lay behind these accusations. What we do all need and want is the full extent of the truth to come out, as best it can, after all these years. Was Saville a solo operator or did he work within a circle of similar predators? Did his fame endorse an over-familiar attitude to the young people his work put him into close contact with? Were (and are) the codes of conduct for 'famous' TV personalities robust enough to deal with the mania of groupies throwing themselves at or worse making themselves available to their target idol? How can a solo operator, or a small close knit group, operate with immunity for such a long period in such a large organisation that I suspect is riddled with gossip and innuendo. Who else knew and were complicit in his exploitation over so many years?
There is a lot more behind this story than just the vilification of a once idol to millions. Let us avoid the trap of using hindsight judgements of our sophisticated age with regard to minors, sexuality and abuse and not use them in place of the mores of twenty, thirty or even forty years ago. Be sure, place guilt where it is found, but first let us be a little circumspect with all these accusations until we better understand their strength and where they lead us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)