Sunday 30 January 2011

How I learned to love my android...

It may sound like something out of a dodgy Blade Runner rip-off, but I love my android.

After two weeks of struggling to adapt to touchscreen, and finding the internet slow, I realised that apps are the answer. Yes, my HTC Wildfire is a clever little phone after all.

The Sky Sports Score Centre app told me today that Boro won 4-0, which makes me happy. It gave me text commentary and team news as well. Even happier.

The Facebook app let's me use chat on my phone.

The e-mail app means I am instantly notified of any message I get, and I can instantly read it.

There are more features, and i'm happy with them all.

In particular I like the Blogger app, which I used to write this....

Although it's taken me two weeks to work out how to actually post this... Techi-geek I am not!
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Growth falls by 0.5%, credibility follows suit

Well, it's been a while, and a lot has happened, since I last blogged. Where do I start?

The biggest domestic issue is, still, the economy (or at least it is since X Factor and the Ashes have finished). In the last quarter of 2010, growth fell by 0.5%. David Cameron acknowledges this as disappointing, whilst also blaming the weather and the past government entirely for his Government's apparent failure.

The cavalry has quickly rallied around Mr Cameron, with George Osbourne claiming that back-pedalling on his expansive programme of spending cuts and tax hikes would lead to "turmoil." Bit late for that isn't it George?

Osbourne, who I like to think of as a modern day Sheriff of Nottingham-type, reckons that cutting the benefits and raising the taxes for the lower end of society, while relaxing taxes on their bosses and clamping down on worker's rights is the way out of this mess.

And hey, if it isn't, at least the rich stay rich huh?

Not that Labour were doing a great job. They did, after all, leave us with a massive budget-deficit and the mess is theirs to clear up. Maybe it would have been fitting to make them actually do that? Maybe it might have actually worked better?

The Brokeback Coalition came in to being basically on the strength of its constituent parts not being labour and its leaders not being Gordon Brown.

I'm no trade unionist, and I'm no big fan of Labour, or of Gordon Brown, but I would prefer Politics to be about policies, not personalities and not hyperbole and spin.

Labour got us in to this mess - we'll get you out of it!

That's the crux of the message from Cameron & Co. Their strength in the last election was in their opponent's previous failure, not their projected success. British people - many of whom are (staggeringly) not political experts - are inclined, in a crisis, to simply vote for change.

That's the nature of democracy in this country. We vote in one Government during a time of economic strife and pat ourselves on the back as we gradually climb out of the mire. Then the normal business-cycle completes its circuit and, surprise surprise, the economy contracts again. This might take 15 years later, but when it happens we turn on those we lauded so highly and vote them out. It happened in the mid-90s, when the Tories buggered up the country, and Tony Blair's New Labour flew in to the rescue. It has just happened again, in reverse, and it will continue to happen in a never-ending cycle of political nonsense, unless the public actually learn to see through the smoke and mirrors of politics.

Sadly, that will probably never happen. There are devout Tory fundamentalists out there. There are staunch Labour supporters. There are Green voters and there are even some confused folk who pledge allegiance to radical fringe parties, like the Lib Dems and the BNP.

But there are also the mass majority who don't know enough or care enough to form proper valid opinions other than those spoon-fed to them by our relentless media and its 24 hour news culture.

Last year, we saw Brown villified while Cameron and Clegg were put on pedestals. In view of the media representation, it's quite staggering that Labour still gave any competition at all.

How can the Tories be credible when they couldn't win outright, despite the circumstances being weighted heavily in their favour? And how can the Lib Dems be credible when they have back-pedalled on their own manifesto to get in to power?

The problem, as ever in UK politics, is that there is no credible alternative.

Tuesday 11 January 2011

Official: The Beeb is ageist. And sexist too!

Miriam O'Reilly: Activist?
Yep. The BBC discriminates against older women.

That's the verdict of the employment tribunal which has ruled that Miriam O'Reilly - the former Countryfile presenter - was unfairly sacked and replaced by a younger model.

It seems pretty black and white, particularly as several other older female presenters were removed at the same time, and replaced in exactly the same manner. The BBC appears to have acted unfairly, and the ruling will be widely celebrated. The journalist and presenter (and apparent spokesperson for the rights of older women) Mariella Frostrup called it a "landmark decision."

The BBC themselves, bound by their forcibly induced political correctness, have unreservedly apologised and even swiftly promised to discuss re-employing Ms O'Reilly.

It was interesting to watch Channel 4's take on events. As a rival firm, you might think that C4 would want to stick the boot in, but instead they produced both sides of the story - it would have been nice to see the BBC do the same, but their response was a limp, cap-in-hand apology:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

Read (BBC correspondent) Torin Douglas's analysis on the right hand side - he states the company line: the BBC will change it's employment policy on the basis of the O'Reilly case, and he believes the rest of the industry will follow suit.

There's a sub-text here, buried deep in the lower paragraphs of the BBC article. Jay Hunt, their former controller (and a 43 year-old woman) resents the accusations against the BBC. Through this vicarious and carefully gender-marked defence, the writer is hinting at what he really wants to write.... that this tribunal is a bit of a sham.

The BBC can't say it, but those outside of the corporation can.

Nick Ross: Pragmatist?
In Channel 4's report, Nick Ross (a man who also was replaced by the BBC when he passed his sell-by date) said that this was something TV Presenters just had to accept. He pointed out that most presenters work on what is effectively a freelance basis and, as a result, they have little job security. He spoke of his time presenting Crimewatch as a privelege which he missed, and was disappointed to have lost, but also said that he accepted it was the nature of the business.

These views are not the company line. They are not politically correct - they also happen to be true. Television and other media are driven by consumption. Decisions about programming, including presenters, are made to ensure that stations get as much of the viewing figures as they can. That is the nature of the beast.

Even more controversially, Ross turned the gender-debate tables on younger women, brazenly stating that "not many mingers" get the prime jobs. Attractive younger women, he argues, are actually advantaged over their male counterparts, and no-one is complaining about that.

Good on you Nick - another politically incorrect comment, and another one that is spot on. Try watching Sky Sports News, and tell me that attractive young women don't get prime jobs in television.  
Jackson, Sawyer and Thompson: "Not mingers"
Sky, of course, know that their target audience would rather see Charlotte Jackson, Natalie Sawyer or Georgie Thompson telling them about football than an.... erm.... Miriam O'Reilly-type. Your average Sky Sports News viewer might not be that fussed about the quality of the journalism (which is usually pretty slick, as it happens).

Of course this is wrong. Reward should be based on merit, not on superficiality. But TV isn't the only culprit here - it happens in all walks of life. Attractive people (yes, women and men) do have an advantage in any recruitment process. That, unfortunately, is human nature.

You can but hope that, in the real world, looks wouldn't be a defining factor in giving someone a job. But TV isn't the real world. It's a visual medium. Like cinema, photography and any visual art it depends, by its most basic nature, on what it looks like. That's what it is and that's why I think the BBC have been hard done by.

Sky, on the other hand, are a commercial business, privileged to not be bound by the same public-service code as the BBC. Would they change their recruitment policy in the name of equality? No chance. Maybe they could follow another course of action though. Perhaps they could scapegoat some high-profile presenters in some sort of stand against sexism? Surely they wouldn't stoop so low. Oh, hang on.....

Gray and Keys: Sexist?
Yep, the Andy Gray and Richard Keys scandal. The pair shared a conversation expressing some politically incorrect, sexist views. Perhaps they thought the conversation was private, and that their microphones were switched off. Perhaps they are, like anyone else, entitled to their opinions? But unfortunately for them, a media circus and moral panic ensued. Both presenters were warned about their conduct.

Then, footage emerged of some 'sexist' banter, in which Gray asked Charlotte Jackson to help him attach his microphone pack down his trousers. Now I must say that if this was a sackable offence in my office, we would all (men and women alike) be heading for the Job Centre. Innuendo at work is commonplace and, in most cases, harmless. But, in the context of the media storm, it was enough to get Gray sacked. Immediately. Without review.

Charlotte Jackson: Sex object?
Other Sky presenters might be nervously wondering what a cursory glance through the archives might find them being accused of. There's an inevitable laddish culture on shows like Soccer Saturday - and the likes of Paul Merson are hardly angels. Soccer AM features a weekly Soccerette. Is it not sexist when the presenter flirts with her, or when the whole studio celebrate or commiserate depending on whether she has a boyfriend or not? Perhaps the female presenters who bolster their careers by posing in Lads Mags, including Miss Jackson, should be sacked for reinforcing the view of women as sex objects?

Of course, this won't happen. There is no agenda for sacking Paul Merson and co. The Soccerette feature and the Lads Mag shoots are considered a bit of fun (whether this is right or wrong is another debate in itself).

Paul Merson: Not sexist?
There's no £1.7m contract to consider, as there was apparently in the Andy Gray case. And why should Sky address institutionalised or culturally embedded sexism when it can get away with vilifying one or two presenters? Gray and Keys were getting long in the tooth anyway - like Miriam O'Reilly - but with their reputations in tatters there will be no employment tribunal for them. They can match O'Reilly's just claim that 20 years of loyal (not to mention pioneering and award-winning in Gray and Keys' case) service demands better treatment. But it is a futile argument for them. Their careers are over, but Sky Sports will come through all of this unscathed and move on, with its artistic license and editorial discretion in tact.

For the BBC though, there has now come a point where political correctness and self-denial begin to overlap. The corporation will follow a course of action which it would not have done before. O'Reilly will probably find herself back on prime-time TV, and some other, equally innocent and perhaps equally competent presenter, who might be a bit younger and/or more attractive, will find themselves out of a job as a result.

If the Beeb's interpretation of their audience's needs were correct, then viewers who are turned off by O'Reilly will literally turn off. They'll watch something else instead, and the BBC will be powerless to stop them.

The commercial channels will be rubbing their hands with glee - enjoying their freedom and profit while the BBC continues to be hamstrung by their enforced sense of diplomacy.

Perhaps the BBC would be able to produce a better standard of show to compete with the commercial channels if it didn't have to ensure all age, gender, race and religious aspect of multi-cultural Britain are "fairly" represented (the truth being tokenism rather than fairness).

But we do live in a country where even Nick Ross' comments immediately provoked anger - God help the man for having an opinion.

John Snow: Sexist?
John Snow closed the Channel 4 News coverage by reading out an e-mail deriding his own presenting ability and his alleged sexist banter with Ross.

"Sack Snow," read the e-mail.

Not because of his age. Not because of his gender. No. Sack him because he presided over a balanced analysis of a controversial subject, including points of views both for (Frostrup) and against (Ross) the verdict. Sack him because he dared to allow Ross to question the view that someone our society categorises as marginalised must automatically be in the right.

Were it to happen, I wonder what an employment tribunal might make of that sacking? Would Snow be backed? Would he win a "landmark" case?

Sadly, I doubt it.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Tuesday 4 January 2011

Crucial Third Day

I'll be staying up for at least a while tonight, mainly because England and Australia are as interestingly poised as they have been in any of these Ashes Tests. Will we push on and rack up a big lead tonight? Or will we pay the price for having surrendered too many runs to the Aussie tail last night?

We may have already retained the Ashes but, of course, our goal is to win the series. Winning it 3-1 would be very satisfactory indeed. Whether we achieve that, or a drawn series and a slightly tainted sense of celebration, could well be decided on tonight's events.

Anyway, earlier on in the series, I questioned whether winning the Ashes in Australia would be a 'great' achievement. With the series drawing to a close, I guess its an ideal time to reflect on that same idea. Let's assume for argument's sake that we go on and win this final test. Will it be a 'great' victory? Has it been a 'great' series? Have we proven ourselves to be a 'great' team?

I'm sad to say that the answer is no to all of those questions. I'm as pleased as the next Englishman to see us retain the Ashes on Australian soil. I'd be delighted to see us seal that 3-1 victory. But, crucially, I'm realistic enough to not get carried away about it.

Too often we English get carried away with our sporting success. Already the noises from the England dressing room are about becoming the top-ranked team in Test cricket. That is fine as an ambition - so long as no-one thinks that we are anywhere near there yet.

The signs are good. Our established bowlers continue to impress. The less established ones - Steven Finn, Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan - have each grasped their opportunities with both hands, and the selectors will have some difficult, but welcome, selection posers in the summer. We have bowled well - although it would be denying the patently obvious to say that the profligacy of the Australian batsmen hasn't helped us out. How many Australian wickets have fallen to catches from deliveries which could (or should) have been left well alone?

Can our bowlers put together the sustained spells of aggression and accuracy required to snare patient, world-class batsmen - the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid - who make you get them out?

After this series, our batsmen will mostly come away with their reputations enhanced by some big scores. Admittedly, that has to be taken in the context of Australia's bowling attack which has, predominantly, been very ordinary.

Against a more experienced, better-balanced bowling unit featuring a genuine, Test-standard spinner, would our batters have been so comfortable?

Well, later this year those questions will be answered. We play India at home and then in the sub-continent.

Now those should be 'great' contests, between two better-matched foes, and they might just be the ones which define whether this England team is truly 'great.'