Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Japanese People's Inspirational Response To Disaster
One of the most moving sights I've seen in all the coverage of the disaster unfolding in Japan has been the stoical way its people cope with unimaginable adversity. Of course you can't generalise about the people of a whole nation but it is telling that western journalists are struggling to get the "human angle" they so covert during such disasters - weeping crowds, chaotic scenes of looting and violence, angry demos of people blaming the government or big business for the situation etc.
Tonight I saw a man being interviewed who was looking for his missing young daughter. Despite what raging internal emotion he must have been feeling, the gut wrenching terror of potentially discovering the worst possible fate of his missing girl, the man spoke with dignity about his situation. He even (politely) admonished the reporter, saying that he didn't like to see foreigners reporting Japan's plight and proudly predicted that his country would rise again.
A woman looks for her 99 year old mother. There's no sign of her in the camps of displaced people. A camera follows her to look for her mother's house, but its gone, along with half her town. The woman weeps quietly but covers her face to hide her emotions from the prying camera. There's no anger, no blame, she feels no need to highlight what a personal tragedy this clearly is.
If you didn't respect the Japanese before, you can't help but do so now.
The British used to be known for their stoical stiff upper lip and ability to cope with adversity. I do wonder how we would cope with disaster on the scale of Japan's. I hope we'd rediscover the strength of the war time generation, but I fear that British quality is lost forever.
Perhaps we can relearn it from our war time opponents.
Labels:
British,
earthquake,
japan,
media,
stiff upper lip,
stoical,
tsunami
Friday, August 20, 2010
Damn You Sexist Media!
I have to admit, in previous years, I've never consciously realised why I've been inexplicably more interested in the news of A-level results than is really justifiable for one who has no personal stake in them.
It was a tweet from Andrew Collins that opened my eyes to the reason... the gratuitous use of pretty young ladies to sell the story (and so their papers and TV shows). What a terrible state of affairs! Those poor naive girls, used by sexist men to sell their tawdry media output. Tch!
But what would be a more acceptable image?
Would you rather this...
Or this...
I know which I find more unacceptable.
PS. Actually, I'm a big fan of Mr Gove. But he is a bit odd looking, isn't he?
It was a tweet from Andrew Collins that opened my eyes to the reason... the gratuitous use of pretty young ladies to sell the story (and so their papers and TV shows). What a terrible state of affairs! Those poor naive girls, used by sexist men to sell their tawdry media output. Tch!
But what would be a more acceptable image?
Would you rather this...
![]() |
| All A-level students are attractive women, mostly with blonde hair |
Or this...
![]() |
| Give us a kiss and I'll get you a place at University |
I know which I find more unacceptable.
PS. Actually, I'm a big fan of Mr Gove. But he is a bit odd looking, isn't he?
Labels:
education,
media,
michael gove,
pretty ladies,
slightly sexist blog
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Disappointing Start To Election 2010
If it isn't bad enough that we're going to have to put up with months of electioneering, Monday's efforts, if indicative of what is to come, are worrying if not predictable.
My main gripe is with the broadcast media more than the politicians, however. I say broadcast as I've not had a chance to review the papers today, but assume they will follow in a similar style.
The Conservatives, at least, attempted to present some substance on their NHS plans by publishing the first in a series of "draft manifesto" policy announcements planned for the next few weeks. They also launched a poster campaign...
Labour, rather more negatively, published a dossier analysing Tory spending promises and tax plans and said it showed that their sums didn't add up.
And the Lib Dems probably did something or said something No one was listening, I'm afraid.
So, all good so far. Then both Labour and Tory announcements had problems.
What worries me is that, rather than attempting to inform the public of what the Conservatives were saying about their plans for the NHS and the deficit they focused on what was a relativity trivial slip up.
They covered Alastair Darlings dossier respectfully and obediently used the "black hole" sound bites that would have appeared in their Labour press briefings. Labour should be very pleased with the coverage they got from that. I saw only a little (certainly not in-depth) analysis of the inaccuracies and dodgy assumptions made in the document. And I saw absolutely NOTHING about the really substantial story, the differences of opinion at the top of Government with regard to their taxation policy.
Given our dumbed down broadcast news services, it is no surprise that trivia is preferred over substance. It seems that if you want to get coverage you need to be negative or make a gaffe (no matter how small - it'll get blown up out of all proportion).
I hope the politicians, at least, try to have reasonably positive campaigns in the hope they will get fair coverage. But I can't see it, can you?
It would be nice to believe that, should there be a change in Government later this year, and with the already certain refresh of many MPs (due to the expenses scandal), that a new relationship between media and political establishment could be forged. Gaffes should be reported, of course (especially if they happen regularly and reflect some kind of personality defect), but not entirely at the expense of the substantial points being made. Let's have a bit of balance.
Thay say we get the politicians and media we deserve, though. So that doesn't say very much for us, does it?
My main gripe is with the broadcast media more than the politicians, however. I say broadcast as I've not had a chance to review the papers today, but assume they will follow in a similar style.
The Conservatives, at least, attempted to present some substance on their NHS plans by publishing the first in a series of "draft manifesto" policy announcements planned for the next few weeks. They also launched a poster campaign...
Labour, rather more negatively, published a dossier analysing Tory spending promises and tax plans and said it showed that their sums didn't add up.
And the Lib Dems probably did something or said something No one was listening, I'm afraid.
So, all good so far. Then both Labour and Tory announcements had problems.
- David Cameron seemingly watered down the Tory's previous commitment to married couples' taxation reform. They later clarified that they were committed to reform, but the damage was done.
- Alastair Darling's dossier turned out to be almost as dodgy as Alastair Campbell's last effort at dossier writing. But, more significantly I believe, he exposed splits in opinion over future taxation policy and not a small amount of hypocrisy over the Government VAT plans (he said he refused to rule out a VAT increase but was attacking the Tories for saying exactly the same thing previously).
What worries me is that, rather than attempting to inform the public of what the Conservatives were saying about their plans for the NHS and the deficit they focused on what was a relativity trivial slip up.
They covered Alastair Darlings dossier respectfully and obediently used the "black hole" sound bites that would have appeared in their Labour press briefings. Labour should be very pleased with the coverage they got from that. I saw only a little (certainly not in-depth) analysis of the inaccuracies and dodgy assumptions made in the document. And I saw absolutely NOTHING about the really substantial story, the differences of opinion at the top of Government with regard to their taxation policy.
Given our dumbed down broadcast news services, it is no surprise that trivia is preferred over substance. It seems that if you want to get coverage you need to be negative or make a gaffe (no matter how small - it'll get blown up out of all proportion).
I hope the politicians, at least, try to have reasonably positive campaigns in the hope they will get fair coverage. But I can't see it, can you?
It would be nice to believe that, should there be a change in Government later this year, and with the already certain refresh of many MPs (due to the expenses scandal), that a new relationship between media and political establishment could be forged. Gaffes should be reported, of course (especially if they happen regularly and reflect some kind of personality defect), but not entirely at the expense of the substantial points being made. Let's have a bit of balance.
Thay say we get the politicians and media we deserve, though. So that doesn't say very much for us, does it?
Labels:
election,
election2010,
media,
politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





