Well, I'm back again. Back to complete my work from the other night. So much to talk about, yet so little time to talk about it. Everything is just one big rush.
So anyway, I'd started talking the other night about some topics in the news and I got as far as discussing politically incorrect royals and politicians getting ideas above their station. Now time to move on and discuss failing brands, ego possessed cricketers and the most powerful man in the world-elect. Let's get cracking then.
3. KP was nuts
As an avid follower of test cricket, I've been intrigued by the recent rumblings that saw Kevin Pietersen resigning the England cricket captaincy after just three test matches. When I say resigning, I think those who follow the game know that essentially Pietersen tendered his resignation before he was metaphorically given the raised finger by umpire Hugh Morris, the chairman of the English Cricket Board.
Opinion on the matter has been somewhat divided. There are those who say that Pietersen had only publicly voiced what everyone else thought, namely that the England coach Peter Moores was not up to the job. There are others who hold the opinion that Pietersen's Everest sized ego had got the better of him and he had no right to serve up ultimatums to his employers.
For my money, I thought Pietersen shot himself in the foot. I am all for cricket captains having a massive say in what goes on. Cricket captains after all have far more of a tactical responsibility when the game is in progress than they do in other sports, such as football or rugby where the captain is essentially the manager's mouthpiece on the pitch. In cricket, the captain sets the field, makes the bowling changes and if he is in a fortunate enough position, decides when his team declares when they bat. Therefore, it stands to reason that the captain wants a big say in who is coaching the team and who takes to the field.
Where Pietersen went wrong was in his gung-ho approach. By stamping his feet and allowing his differences with Moores to become public and then doing little to deny them, he allowed a situation to escalate. Had Pietersen publicly denied a rift but quietly made it known to the ECB's managers that he had reservations about Moores's coaching methods and his ability to take the team forward, then his bosses would have been duty bound to listen. However, Pietersen overstepped the mark. By making threats and serving up ultimatums while on safari, it was tantamount to signing his own resignation note. Yet, had Pietersen show a touch of emotional intelligence, he would have got what he wanted anyway as I am sure the ECB were considering dispensing with Moores in any event. After all, they sacked him the day before Pietersen resigned.
It was always a risk to appoint Pietersen captain, and I had my doubts about whether it was a smart move at the time of his appointment. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a fantastic batsman and he is the one truly world class player in the England test team. But being the best player doesn't necessarily make you the right person to lead the team. Take Sir Ian Botham for example. The flamboyant, moustachioed all-rounder captained England in 12 test matches and England won none of them. Admittedly 10 of those tests were against the outstanding West Indies team of the early 80s and the other 2 were against Australia, but Botham's own form took a battering when he took charge of the team and it wasn't until he was released from the burden of captaincy that the "Botham's Ashes" performances of 1981 which have entered cricketing folklore came about. More recently, Andrew Flintoff captained England to a 5-0 whitewashing by Australia in the 2006/07 Ashes series, a couple of months before acquainting himself with a Pedalo.
Botham and Flintoff at the time would both have been considered England's best player, but neither were a success as a captain. Like Pietersen, they were both superb (in Flintoff's case, he still is) individual talents but they are also flamboyant, cocky, flash individuals who like being centre of attention. Pietersen, however, craves the limelight and just loves being noticed. He was always likely to ruffle feathers in the dressing room, and that in itself is not a bad thing. Pietersen has an incredible will to win and it has been questionable in recent times whether some of England's other Ashes 2005 heroes have the same desire. But Michael Vaughan showed that you don't need to be flash and fiery to be a captain, what you do need to be is a good man manager and a good tactician. Pietersen had been good in parts in the early stages of his captaincy in both departments, but he did also show signs of weakness.
Andrew Strauss has since been appointed as captain and the general consensus is that he is a "safe pair of hands". I think that description is a bit disrespectful, to be honest as it makes it sound like Strauss is steady yet uninspiring and predictable. I'm not so sure about that. It's worth remembering that Strauss captained England to a test series victory in 2006 against Pakistan when Michael Vaughan was injured before being overlooked for captaining the ill fated tour of Australia the following winter. He is a stalwart of the England team and has also captained Middlesex. He was not considered when Pietersen was appointed only because at the time his place in the team was not guaranteed. Two centuries on the tour of India have ensured that is no longer an issue and Strauss has a quiet determination about him that strikes me that the responsibility of captaincy will bring the best out of him.
People have said that the fallout from Pietersen and Moores's bust-up will have adverse effects on England's chances of retaining The Ashes this summer. I don't think it will be a factor as the series is still six months away yet. England first of all have two series against West Indies to play, one in the Caribbean followed by a series to start the English summer. The maroon caps are light years from being the force they were in the 1980s and they represent the perfect opportunity for England to play themselves back into form ahead of The Ashes and for Strauss to make a creditable start to his reign as England captain.
Besides which, Australia have problems of their own at the moment. Several of their star players of the past 15 years have retired in a short space of time and the new generation of Australian players are taking time to bed in. Recent series defeats to India and at home to South Africa have shown they are not invincible any more and that taking 20 wickets per match is a struggle for them. A return series in South Africa next month will reveal much about what Australia still have to offer, but England certainly should not approach the Australians with trepidation.
As for Pietersen, for the time being I don't see him losing the captaincy affecting his commitment to England. England after all, provides the vehicle for his publicity and he will want to be at the heart of England's efforts to wrestle back The Ashes. Not only will he want to, but his performances definitely will be key to England's chances of winning back the little urn. In the longer term, a lucrative offer to play in the Indian Premier League might be too much for him to turn down, as he would certainly be a major draw card. In times ahead though, in quieter reflective moments at least, I'm sure Pietersen will regret taking such a heavy handed approach in ensuring he got his own way.
4. M&S is simply food
I read with some interest that Marks & Spencer are one of the latest retailers to find themselves struggling in the current economic crisis. The High Street giant posted one of their worst pre-Christmas sale records in history and their profits are down on last year. The offshot of these trends is that M&S are going to lay off 1000 staff and are going to close around 30 stores, of which 25 are M&S's Simply Food convenience stores which are generally found on the forecourts of train stations and petrol stations.
This is a predictable strategy for dealing with financial difficulty as, after all, staff salary costs account for the most significant portion of a company's expenditure. Nonetheless, I was particularly interested in M&S's decision to close 25 Simply Food outlets having read an article that gave an itemisation of where M&S's sales were especially hit. According to a report I read, M&S's December sales for food were down by 1 per cent, while its clothing sales had dipped by 7 per cent.
This kind of confirmed to me something which I had thought for some time, which is that public perception regards M&S as being a store that sells quality food which the consumer is prepared to buy, whereas the public is less convinced by M&S's ability to provide quality clothing. Consumers have for some time found that their tastes in clothing are somewhat different to M&S's rather play-it-safe designs. If people want practical clothing, they are more likely to go to Primark where clothing is available at a discounted price. Primark did, by contrast, have a good December for this very reason. Those that will pay more for own branded fashions are more likely to trust the likes of River Island and Next.
Now, if you take the argument that M&S is first and foremost a food seller, just how much do they splash on square footage in their shops which is taken up by non-food products? Not just clothing, but M&S has also diversified into selling home furnishings and decorations. The thing is, who, hand on heart, genuinely thinks that when they are buying candles, tea cloths or table lamps that they will buy any of those items from M&S? Somewhere like Habitat or maybe Debenham's would be ahead in the queue for starters. Instead of stocking these products that don't sell, M&S could save on their square footage costs or they could stock more food.
Obviously, I'm not saying M&S should ditch all of its other products bar food. I do think it has a long, established history in selling clothes and there is a niche market who has an affinity for the M&S brand. Also, the food market is a saturated one and one disadvantage M&S has in this respect is that unlike Sainsbury's, ASDA or Tesco, it has very few superstores with immediate access to a car park. But I think M&S has a slightly different target market to these giants of the supermarket industry. M&S trades on quality, where people buy food at sometimes premium prices because they suspect they are paying for additional quality. M&S therefore is competing more with Waitrose, who are also not widely known for their superstores.
M&S and its CEO, Sir Stuart Rose have no room for complacency. Having a long established brand that is popular is no guarantee of your longevity. The recent demise of Woolworth's is testament to this, with many of its customers only returning after hearing of its imminent passing, no doubt looking for a good bargain amongst the pick and mix and a free chair for the kitchen from the cafe. M&S's Simply Food stores are relatively small brew in comparison to their bigger stores, but they do sell the core product and their stores surely do not run at such vast overheads. On this basis, it seems odd that M&S have focused its cost cutting on these stores. They must not lose sight that there are other parts of their business that are failing and a radical rethink of what the company's product and positioning strategy may need to be made sooner rather than later.
In other recession news, JCB are also feeling the pinch. This surely comes as no surprise. In the current economic situation, there must be hundreds of building projects that have been started only to be discontinued. There is one such construction next to where I work in Croydon which has been fallow for a good couple of months now after the sound of JCBs could be heard non-stop in late summer. With less construction work taking place and therefore less demand for a JCB, their income is obviously going to decrease.
5. Obama should be wary of Lincoln parallels
So, this Tuesday, Barack Obama officially becomes the forty-fourth leader of the free world and with it the most powerful man in the world. His election was a great achievement and many look forward to the fresh approach that they hope that Obama will deliver. In one sense, Obama can't lose because whatever happens, he surely will be a vast improvement on his predecessor. Safe to say Obama will not be looking for new ways to do harm to his citizens, nor will he be attempting to put food on his family, or indeed will he confirm that most of his country's imports come from abroad. He is also more likely to commit to the environment, as surely he will know that impurities in the air and the water is the same thing as pollution itself.
But while satirists and rednecks may be saddened by George Dubya's departure, surely those of a sane mind will welcome a regime change where a new leader with fresh, considered ideas comes in to try and restore the US's reputation. Unfortunately for Obama, he has a lot of hype to live up to but he takes over at a difficult time. Many questions will be asked of how he handles his early days in charge. Will he close Guantanamo Bay? Will he consider pulling troops out of Iraq? And what of the wider war on terror? And what does he do about the ailing US economy, which is suffering much like its British counterpart? Questions, questions, questions. In some senses, Obama taking over when he does, he could be forgiven for thinking he is inheriting a poisoned chalice.
I think Obama will surprise people, both his supporters and his initial detractors. His supporters might be surprised that he doesn't take such a leftfield approach as they might anticipate. His theories may spring from leftfield but the practicalities of governing may force him to change tack a little. His detractors seem to be people who cast doubt over his experience. I find this line of thought ridiculous. Obama is 47 years old, exactly the same age that Bill Clinton was when he took office, and 4 years older than John F Kennedy was when he became President. OK, Obama does not have a long political career behind him, but I find that a trifle irrelevant. Obama is no intellectual lightweight, he knows politics and social affairs inside out. He is a man of the world. And what he doesn't know about, well, he has a team of well chosen advisors to point him in the right direction on.
It has been noticeable that Obama in the prelude to taking over has been paying homage to Abraham Lincoln by, like Lincoln, taking a slow train from Philadelphia to Washington for the inauguration. Clearly Obama has great respect for one of the US's most renowned Presidents. Nonetheless, there is one parallel that Obama must be careful to avoid. Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theatre, Washington in 1865 by John Wilkes Booth and before Obama was even elected, a plot to assassinate him was uncovered.
It was an achievement of sorts that Barack Obama was elected in a country where prejudicial attitudes still fester among some of the poorer and less educated parts of the country. But a great challenge still lies ahead, as the political map on US election night proved, with a strip of Republican red still dominating the southern states. Obama needs to convince many people in that part of the world. He needs to hold his friends close and enemies even nearer to survive for the whole eight years unscathed. I wish Obama all the best in his journey, he is certainly going to need it.
6. Who shot JR?
A simple answer to this question, the Daily Mail. The JR in question is not the Texan oil baron played by Larry Hagman, but the BBC's highest paid employee. The Mail has long had a dislike of the BBC which I discussed on these pages a few weeks ago. But the Mail seem to still have a few bullets hidden in the desks of their office judging their incessant campaign to remove Jonathan Ross from the schedules for good.
Why can't the Mail just get over themselves? They keep convincing themselves that the majority of people on the BBC want Ross sacked, when the actual truth is that Ross has a huge legion of fans who are actually quite unhappy that they have been deprived the opportunity to watch or listen to their favourite irreverent performer these past three months because a bunch of morons who don't have the first interest in Ross took exception to a misguided broadcast which they only heard about second hand.
Next Friday sees the return of Ross's Friday night chat show and a star studded guest list with Tom Cruise, Stephen Fry and Lee Evans all sharing the green room with Scottish rockers Franz Ferdinand. Hardly points to the Mail's boast that Ross's guest bookers had found it difficult to find star names to come and be grilled by the quiffed one. As I believe they say in wrestling circles, controversy creates cash, or where television is concerned, ratings. The controversy of the Ross affair and the publicity his return will generate will surely result in the best audience figures his chat show has ever had. A night out for a few jars might be replaced by a night in with Wossy and a six pack on Friday 23 January.
This week, the Mail expressed shock and outrage that Jonathan Ross had been given the gig of presenting the BAFTA Awards just two weeks after his return to television. How can they do this, they asked? How have they misjudged the public outrage, they added? How dare they!!! Well, Daily Mail, let me explain very carefully and succinctly why the BBC made this appointment.
Jonathan Ross returns to work this Friday. Therefore that makes him eligible for any offers of work from the BBC thereafter. As much as I'm sure the Daily Mail would rather the BBC had him cleaning the toilets or serving baked beans in the BBC canteen, he is paid to be a television presenter. He is an accomplished and established presenter of awards ceremonies too, having presented the British Comedy Awards since 1991 until Angus Deayton stepped into the breach last year. The BAFTA Awards celebrate film and television and Jonathan Ross is the BBC's flagship film reviewer and presenter and he has interviewed many of the big names in the industry. Therefore, why shouldn't Ross present it? Who would the Mail line up? Dale Winton? Jimmy Tarbuck? Richard Littlejohn? Do me a favour.
Ross has tough times ahead. The BBC have effectively put him on a final warning and have censored his chat show. Why this measure was needed on a pre-recorded show when near the knuckle content could always be edited out anyway, I'm not too sure. Ross really should be returning to work and thinking of remaining true to himself, but thanks to our friends from the Mail and other moral crusaders, he is likely to be a broadcasting Icarus, his metaphoric wings burnt through travelling too near the Sun (the big yellow thing in the sky, not the newspaper).
As if that wasn't enough, he also finds himself returning to Radio 2 where he will receive a seasonal welcome. Frosty to say the least. Radio 2 colleagues will resent the fact that Ross remains when Lesley Douglas the former Radio 2 controller does not. That Ross was in the wrong is not in doubt. But his way of redemption is to pull audiences in. The only way he does that is to unashamedly be himself. He is a master at his craft and like all masters, he is sometimes capable of self-destructing. But the world would be a duller place without such people and TV and radio certainly needs controversial and captivating characters like Ross to remain part of the furniture. He seems like one of the good guys.
So, I hope that Ross comes back and shuts all the doubters up and the audiences tune in to send a message to the Daily Mail. Namely, to go and ram their publication firmly somewhere short of sunlight. Oh, and the irony in all of this. Who has been the biggest winner in the Sachsgate affair? Andrew Sachs of course. Having been in semi-retirement just in a few theatrical productions, Sachs is now a regular in Countdown's Dictionary Corner and later this year he will join the cast of Coronation Street. While I'm sure he could have done without the invasion of privacy that Ross and Brand's broadcast served up, it has nonetheless, been the biggest shot in the arm his career has had in many a year. Sachs's agent's phone, well, "it go crazeeee" (sic) as some Spanish waiter once said. It's a funny old world.
Sunday 18 January 2009
Thursday 15 January 2009
Can open, worms everywhere
Greetings readers. Apologies for the hiatus once again. Hope the January blues are not getting you all down too much. Apparently last week saw the most depressing day of the year for everyone. The fact that it has now elapsed surely is a positive thing!
Well, there has been a lot in the news in the last week or two. Beyond the disturbing scenes in Gaza going on at this time and the ever decreasing interest rates, there have been a few other stories that have made the headlines. Maybe I should lead on one of these stories in more detail, but for the purposes of this latest blog, I thought I would do a bit of a news wrap and kind of say what I think about it all. I'll lead with a couple of talking points for now, and cover some more in my next blog at the weekend.
1. Foot in mouth disease
Fear not farmers, there is no need to build up any pyres of cattle for the foreseeable future at least. In the week when the indisputable king of verbal gaffes, George Walker Bush, prepares to leave the Oval Office, it seems that others in the public eye are not be outdone in opening their mouth before engaging their brain.
First of all we had the Prince Harry debacle over his use of the P word when being caught on film sharing some idle banter with his fellow troops while stationed at Sandhurst. My initial reaction on hearing of The News of the World's expose was to wonder why a Sunday newspaper was leading on something that happened four years ago. Given the amount going on in the world in the here and now, surely there were more newsworthy mole hills to create a mountain from. I imagine when Harry was first quizzed about the incident, he probably needed some prompting about when it happened.
The term that Prince Harry used was unacceptable and the word as an innocent term is long outdated, due to the connotations associated with it, particularly as a result of the racial hatred that was prevalent in the 1970s. Because of that, the moment the story broke and Harry's words were thrust into the public domain, he was duty bound to apologise for it. To his credit, the third in line to the throne was swift in issuing an apology for his inappropriate choice of language and really, that should be the end of the story.
As ever, you need to look at the context of the remarks. The armed forces, much like a football changing room or a building site is a hub of male bonding and debauchery. Speak to anyone who has served in the forces or who has played football to a decent level and they will tell you one of the things they miss when they walk down civvie street or hang up their boots is the camaraderie with colleagues who become friends. And this camaraderie includes trading silly insults and comments, which if taken in another context, could be seen as offensive or personal slights. I took Harry's remarks to be light hearted, albeit irresponsible, but I certainly did not think he said what he did to undermine his Asian colleague.
Of course, Prince Harry being such a public figure finds himself in a position where his every word and action is going to be scrutinised and he needs to be seen as squeaky clean, at least by the moral majority. Because he has uttered the P word, I suppose there is a danger that other people might think it acceptable to use in its most sinister terms. But let's be sensible here. Harry was 21 years old at the time, just as he was 20 years old when he was photographed in a Nazi outfit at a fancy dress party. All of us to some level did something stupid or something we regretted in our late teens and early 20s. I have a hazy memory of one or two such nights that spring to mind. We criticise Harry for being out of touch, but from what I can see, certain pleasures he indulged in during his early 20s were not that dissimilar from what many people enjoyed in their hedonistic 20s. Harry is 4 years older now, life has moved on and he seems to be wiser for the experience.
Both Prince Harry and his father have a responsibility to ensure that they are careful not to be construed as racist or out of touch with modern thinking in their future words and actions. That is fair enough. But nonetheless, I do feel that there is a current trend by the papers to clamp down on every little indiscretion that occurs. Wiping out prejudice and the causes of prejudice is a very noble cause and I suppose in a way, this story does at least tell us that we are a long way from achieving this nigh on impossible aim. But we must also be careful not to become so sensitive over every comment that is made. If the speaker uses their common sense and just thinks for a second before opening their mouth, everyone can move forward in sweet harmony.
2. Jumbled up thoughts
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the uncanny ability of MPs to get ideas above their station and talk about subjects on which they know so little about. Barely a week goes by without some Westminster part-timer adding to the world's carbon emissions by providing supposedly insightful comment via their back passage.
And so to this week's undisputed winner in this category, Mr Richard Springer. Mr Springer believes that Dyslexia doesn't exist and that those who find difficulty in unscrambling letters, reading and writing are failures of the education system who conveniently have been tagged with a diagnosis.
While Mr Springer is certainly right that there are some children who pass through the education system who are failed by it, to say that this is the cause of illiteracy is way off the mark. Springer used some rather bizarre logic in reaching his controversial conclusions, one of which was that Britain had a higher illiteracy rate than some third world countries. I think he used Nicaragua as an example. Well that stands to reason really, Great Britain has a significantly higher population! Springer also cited that people who are dyslexic often tend to be people who end up breaking the law. I would say that is something of a generalisation, although that correlation is not that surprising, nor is it new. People who have difficulty reading and writing have traditionally found it more difficult to gain employment, unless it involves learning a trade and if you leave school having struggled in exams which involve reading and writing, poor grades result in less prospects and a greater temptation to turn to crime.
But surely the truth of the matter is that the condition happens much earlier, sometimes it can be hereditary. A child is likely to show signs at a very early age that they are struggling with reading and writing. Perhaps one reason that there are more dyslexic children now than in previous times is that maybe in some instances they are not reading with their parents at an early age, due to the busy lives that are led by a good number of parents. I don't know, that's just a hunch. But anyway, reading and writing from an early age I don't think can eradicate the condition of dyslexia, it just means it can be made more manageable. Springer's comments are implying it is a state of mind, which would mean that children struggling in this way at a young age would just be regarded as slow learners.
And this is where I think Springer's comments were not just irresponsible but a bit dangerous too. I left school in 1994 and children of around my age were quite fortunate in as much as those who were dyslexic or had any other learning need got the specialist support they needed to work with their condition and improve to a manageable level. However, I recall speaking to a couple of people 5, 10 years older than me who are dyslexic and they told me how they were not diagnosed as being dyslexic until they were in their mid-20s. They actually got to that stage in life scratching their head wondering why they had difficulty spelling, why words seemed jumbled up. "I just thought I was thick" I remember one of the guys in question saying. I also remember former Scotland rugby player Kenny Logan saying on TV last year that he only discovered he was dyslexic after his wife, TV presenter Gabby, noticed he had difficulty in reading a newspaper article about the couple. He was 32 years old at the time.
The impact of what Springer said could have negative ramifications and take people back 20 years in terms of their attitudes. It cannot be right for those who suffer with dyslexia, be they children or adult, to be marginalised in this way by someone who has no hard facts to back up his dogmatic witterings. If he had just said that the term 'dyslexia' is a general term that pigeon-holes everyone with one diagnosis, when in truth, there are likely to be different types of dyslexia, much as there are different types of mental ill health and the common cold in fact has thousands of different viruses, then Springer might well have had the makings of a good point.
But his point went beyond this. While I feel that the education system has its failings in this country and it is valid to explore how it can do more to support children who have a learning difficulty of some description, you cannot blame it squarely for illiteracy rates. Dyslexia is a condition of the mind in as much as it is the mind that is the defective point that is having difficulty transmitting information. But it is a very real condition and it is triggered at the earliest stages of life, as indeed are the majority of learning difficulties. We are in times where more can be done to train the brain, such as Nintendo Wii brain exercise packages and perhaps exposing children who have difficulty with aspects of their learning at an early age to interactive, fun packages that can help their development is the way to go. But these will not cure someone's dyslexia, dyscalcia etc completely, it will just reduce its impact over time.
On that basis, dyslexia very definitely does exist and is not just a convenient excuse and Mr Springer deserves to count the bricks in the public gallery as a punishment for his thoughtless remarks.
All I've got time for tonight. But I hope to be back at the weekend with some more discussion of items in the news, such as the latest credit crunch victors and victims, KP's departure, JR's return and Internet security checking. Hey, it's going to be a ball!
Well, there has been a lot in the news in the last week or two. Beyond the disturbing scenes in Gaza going on at this time and the ever decreasing interest rates, there have been a few other stories that have made the headlines. Maybe I should lead on one of these stories in more detail, but for the purposes of this latest blog, I thought I would do a bit of a news wrap and kind of say what I think about it all. I'll lead with a couple of talking points for now, and cover some more in my next blog at the weekend.
1. Foot in mouth disease
Fear not farmers, there is no need to build up any pyres of cattle for the foreseeable future at least. In the week when the indisputable king of verbal gaffes, George Walker Bush, prepares to leave the Oval Office, it seems that others in the public eye are not be outdone in opening their mouth before engaging their brain.
First of all we had the Prince Harry debacle over his use of the P word when being caught on film sharing some idle banter with his fellow troops while stationed at Sandhurst. My initial reaction on hearing of The News of the World's expose was to wonder why a Sunday newspaper was leading on something that happened four years ago. Given the amount going on in the world in the here and now, surely there were more newsworthy mole hills to create a mountain from. I imagine when Harry was first quizzed about the incident, he probably needed some prompting about when it happened.
The term that Prince Harry used was unacceptable and the word as an innocent term is long outdated, due to the connotations associated with it, particularly as a result of the racial hatred that was prevalent in the 1970s. Because of that, the moment the story broke and Harry's words were thrust into the public domain, he was duty bound to apologise for it. To his credit, the third in line to the throne was swift in issuing an apology for his inappropriate choice of language and really, that should be the end of the story.
As ever, you need to look at the context of the remarks. The armed forces, much like a football changing room or a building site is a hub of male bonding and debauchery. Speak to anyone who has served in the forces or who has played football to a decent level and they will tell you one of the things they miss when they walk down civvie street or hang up their boots is the camaraderie with colleagues who become friends. And this camaraderie includes trading silly insults and comments, which if taken in another context, could be seen as offensive or personal slights. I took Harry's remarks to be light hearted, albeit irresponsible, but I certainly did not think he said what he did to undermine his Asian colleague.
Of course, Prince Harry being such a public figure finds himself in a position where his every word and action is going to be scrutinised and he needs to be seen as squeaky clean, at least by the moral majority. Because he has uttered the P word, I suppose there is a danger that other people might think it acceptable to use in its most sinister terms. But let's be sensible here. Harry was 21 years old at the time, just as he was 20 years old when he was photographed in a Nazi outfit at a fancy dress party. All of us to some level did something stupid or something we regretted in our late teens and early 20s. I have a hazy memory of one or two such nights that spring to mind. We criticise Harry for being out of touch, but from what I can see, certain pleasures he indulged in during his early 20s were not that dissimilar from what many people enjoyed in their hedonistic 20s. Harry is 4 years older now, life has moved on and he seems to be wiser for the experience.
Both Prince Harry and his father have a responsibility to ensure that they are careful not to be construed as racist or out of touch with modern thinking in their future words and actions. That is fair enough. But nonetheless, I do feel that there is a current trend by the papers to clamp down on every little indiscretion that occurs. Wiping out prejudice and the causes of prejudice is a very noble cause and I suppose in a way, this story does at least tell us that we are a long way from achieving this nigh on impossible aim. But we must also be careful not to become so sensitive over every comment that is made. If the speaker uses their common sense and just thinks for a second before opening their mouth, everyone can move forward in sweet harmony.
2. Jumbled up thoughts
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the uncanny ability of MPs to get ideas above their station and talk about subjects on which they know so little about. Barely a week goes by without some Westminster part-timer adding to the world's carbon emissions by providing supposedly insightful comment via their back passage.
And so to this week's undisputed winner in this category, Mr Richard Springer. Mr Springer believes that Dyslexia doesn't exist and that those who find difficulty in unscrambling letters, reading and writing are failures of the education system who conveniently have been tagged with a diagnosis.
While Mr Springer is certainly right that there are some children who pass through the education system who are failed by it, to say that this is the cause of illiteracy is way off the mark. Springer used some rather bizarre logic in reaching his controversial conclusions, one of which was that Britain had a higher illiteracy rate than some third world countries. I think he used Nicaragua as an example. Well that stands to reason really, Great Britain has a significantly higher population! Springer also cited that people who are dyslexic often tend to be people who end up breaking the law. I would say that is something of a generalisation, although that correlation is not that surprising, nor is it new. People who have difficulty reading and writing have traditionally found it more difficult to gain employment, unless it involves learning a trade and if you leave school having struggled in exams which involve reading and writing, poor grades result in less prospects and a greater temptation to turn to crime.
But surely the truth of the matter is that the condition happens much earlier, sometimes it can be hereditary. A child is likely to show signs at a very early age that they are struggling with reading and writing. Perhaps one reason that there are more dyslexic children now than in previous times is that maybe in some instances they are not reading with their parents at an early age, due to the busy lives that are led by a good number of parents. I don't know, that's just a hunch. But anyway, reading and writing from an early age I don't think can eradicate the condition of dyslexia, it just means it can be made more manageable. Springer's comments are implying it is a state of mind, which would mean that children struggling in this way at a young age would just be regarded as slow learners.
And this is where I think Springer's comments were not just irresponsible but a bit dangerous too. I left school in 1994 and children of around my age were quite fortunate in as much as those who were dyslexic or had any other learning need got the specialist support they needed to work with their condition and improve to a manageable level. However, I recall speaking to a couple of people 5, 10 years older than me who are dyslexic and they told me how they were not diagnosed as being dyslexic until they were in their mid-20s. They actually got to that stage in life scratching their head wondering why they had difficulty spelling, why words seemed jumbled up. "I just thought I was thick" I remember one of the guys in question saying. I also remember former Scotland rugby player Kenny Logan saying on TV last year that he only discovered he was dyslexic after his wife, TV presenter Gabby, noticed he had difficulty in reading a newspaper article about the couple. He was 32 years old at the time.
The impact of what Springer said could have negative ramifications and take people back 20 years in terms of their attitudes. It cannot be right for those who suffer with dyslexia, be they children or adult, to be marginalised in this way by someone who has no hard facts to back up his dogmatic witterings. If he had just said that the term 'dyslexia' is a general term that pigeon-holes everyone with one diagnosis, when in truth, there are likely to be different types of dyslexia, much as there are different types of mental ill health and the common cold in fact has thousands of different viruses, then Springer might well have had the makings of a good point.
But his point went beyond this. While I feel that the education system has its failings in this country and it is valid to explore how it can do more to support children who have a learning difficulty of some description, you cannot blame it squarely for illiteracy rates. Dyslexia is a condition of the mind in as much as it is the mind that is the defective point that is having difficulty transmitting information. But it is a very real condition and it is triggered at the earliest stages of life, as indeed are the majority of learning difficulties. We are in times where more can be done to train the brain, such as Nintendo Wii brain exercise packages and perhaps exposing children who have difficulty with aspects of their learning at an early age to interactive, fun packages that can help their development is the way to go. But these will not cure someone's dyslexia, dyscalcia etc completely, it will just reduce its impact over time.
On that basis, dyslexia very definitely does exist and is not just a convenient excuse and Mr Springer deserves to count the bricks in the public gallery as a punishment for his thoughtless remarks.
All I've got time for tonight. But I hope to be back at the weekend with some more discussion of items in the news, such as the latest credit crunch victors and victims, KP's departure, JR's return and Internet security checking. Hey, it's going to be a ball!
Sunday 4 January 2009
Free speech has its drawbacks
Well, Happy New Year everyone. I hope you had a Christmas that did not leave you too stuffed and has left with you with a sufficient bank balance in order to negotiate the January sales. I hope that 2009 is a rewarding and healthy one for you all.
Apologies for the lack of blogs in the past three weeks or so. Time has been at a premium with the usual pre-Christmas rush of things to do and people to see. I was not helped either by going down with the 'flu for about a week before Christmas. Plenty of it going around it would seem.
There are a few things which I would like to talk about that have been in the news of late and I hope that I will get opportunity to discuss some of these matters in future blog posts.
First things first though. Is it just me or is there a media frenzy these days for the media in any form, be it newspapers, magazines, websites, radio programmes or television programmes to get our opinion on absolutely everything, be it serious topical debate or the completely inane? Turn on Breakfast or GMTV in the morning and to kill the two minutes before cutting to the regional news or the weather and you will get Bill and Sian or Ben and Kate reading out a selection of texts to do with people's opinions on the important story of the day or on something completely trivial, followed by a sentence like "keep your texts coming in" or "we would like to know what you think". Obviously the BBC and ITV have to make money out of texts now that their money making opportunities from suspect competitions have been restricted.
Or, if you turn on the radio, there are entire radio stations devoted to topical debate which would not survive unless the average white van driver or painter and decorator didn't phone in to discuss the state of the economy between jobs. There are also vast numbers of websites out there with discussion forums where people can debate a wide spectrum of topics, depending on what tickles their fancy. Expertise and knowledge of the subject in hand appears to be an optional requirement.
The question is though, does this open invitation for such opinion actually help to have a meaningful debate on important issues, or does it just provide a platform to people who lack the debating skills or indeed the knowledge of the debated subject and which in the end turns the debates into nothing more than pantomimes? Discussions on TV tend to encourage the controversial so to provoke argument, but meaningful conclusions can rarely be drawn from such debates. All the TV companies are looking for are flash points because these will draw people in, everyone likes an old fashioned tear-up, after all and these draw the viewers in. But discussions tend to be rushed so the next topic can be discussed and so no debate ever really reaches a satisfactory conclusion.
Perhaps the worst offenders though are newspaper websites. One daily newspaper encourages its readers to "join the debate", although from memory, the newspaper in question happens to be one that plays with the minds of its readers by scare mongering. But even the quality newspapers provide its readers with the opportunity to contribute comments to any story that they publish online, usually with the proviso that the reader is signed up as a member of their website. This is not a difficult process, as it asks only for your name, e-mail address and for you to provide a username and password, so even someone with the level of intelligence that George W. Bush possesses would be able to sign up.
Now, in one sense this is good because complete strangers can have a debate on any given subject on which they happen to have a mutual interest, if not a shared opinion. But the secret to any such website is that it needs to be moderated. People who post inflammatory remarks or who make comments that deviate from the subject or from the spirit of the use of the comments boxes should have their comments removed. It is not an easy job being a website moderator, as you are seen as a beak, an interfering busybody to compare with traffic wardens or tax collectors. But theirs is a necessary job because otherwise it shows the newspaper whose website it is in a bad light and what started out as a constructive debate turns into a squabble between people of conflicting opinions, but who lack the skills or inclination to debate in a constructive manner.
Generally, the national broadsheet newspapers tend to police the opinion/comments sections of their websites adequately and they encourage free speech while removing anything that is particularly offensive or outrageous. The BBC's website has an even more rigorous process where every post made has to be checked before it is posted on its discussion forums. This goes too far for some people, but clearly free speech is a privilege which some of its beneficiaries choose to abuse through their own ignorance, intolerances or lack of thought.
If you are wondering what particularly stirred me to write about this topic, I would advise you to take a look at The Argus website at www.theargus.co.uk . The Argus, for those who live outside of the Brighton area, is the leading daily newspaper that covers Brighton and Hove and the immediate surrounding area. It reputedly keeps its readers in tune with all the important news in the Brighton area as and when it happens. To give the newspaper its dues, its website does update on a regular basis and any breaking news that occurs during the day very quickly makes it on to their website.
However, if you sense a 'but' coming you would be right. The Argus has become a more sensationalist newspaper in recent years and this is reflected in the way it reports on its stories, often over-dramatising events and also becoming more self-righteous in its editorial pieces, much in the tome you would expect of a national daily tabloid newspaper. If you strip down the nuts and bolts, The Argus has deteriorated in terms of its output in recent years, with over the top headlines, stories of not hugely significant interest and plenty of adverts. I suppose given that people have less time to read the news, this suits them because they can skim read The Argus in a matter of minutes, but it is a sad indictment.
This sensationalist output from The Argus has a knock-on effect as it influences the quality of opinion from its readers and this is particularly evident if you read the comments that get posted in response to the stories carried on The Argus website. I decided to sign up as a member of its discussion forums just before the New Year having been particularly disturbed by the self-righteous and judgemental attitudes voiced by some commentators in response to a story that The Argus had run on its website about a murder victim in the city.
The story related to a man who had been stabbed to death in the early hours in the centre of Brighton. My first reaction on hearing about this was to be shocked that the incident happened about 10 minutes from where I live and in a street that I must walk up and down at least a couple of times a week. Anyway, The Argus reported that people living near the scene had heard a commotion a few minutes earlier and that a drunk sounding person was heard to sing football songs in the vicinity.
Now, no-one can really be sure what led to the circumstances of the man's murder until further evidence comes to light and any prosecution takes place. But, due to The Argus rather helpfully reporting this commotion, it has led to the amateur Poirots amongst The Argus's readership to go online and stick in their two penneth, including saying that the victim "must have asked for trouble", in some way assuming that the victim was singing the songs in question, some asking "why was he out at that time of night?" as the murder supposedly occurred in the early hours of the morning while another upon reading that the victim was unemployed, asked why the victim was out drinking at that time of night when he wouldn't have an income to do so, when there is no firm evidence to suggest the person who had been stabbed had been out drinking, but again this had been assumed on the basis of The Argus's article.
These, and other such thought provoking comments can be found in response to the story that The Argus originally ran on this subject, while a comment from joeinbrighton can also be read which asked that The Argus firstly did more to moderate comments on its website so to put a stop to rent-an-idiot putting the world to rights and secondly which asked those who live in greenhouses not to throw stones and to respect the dead and their family and friends, regardless of how they came to be taken from this world, without resorting to cheap shots and snap judgements. I doubt my intervention will make much difference, but these kinds of comments come about as a result of cheap journalism and media who are all too ready to invite opinion without any attention given to quality control.
In fact, I know that my comments in response to the previous article made no difference as I checked back into the Argus website earlier and read some comments in response to another article, this time about a semi-professional footballer who plays for Eastbourne Borough who was admitted to hospital a few days ago after suffering a wound to his head that caused a clot to his brain. From The Argus story it would appear that the footballer in question, Paul Armstrong, was the victim of an attack or a fight in the vicinity of a pub in Crawley which resulted in him receiving this blow to the head which could have had fatal consequences.
I read this article with some interest as a good friend of mine is a team-mate of Mr Armstrong's at Eastbourne Borough and I had wondered why he had not played in a match that I had been to earlier in the week. I don't know Paul Armstrong personally, although I have met him and he would seem to be a nice guy on the surface, so it was sad to hear of his predicament. I hoped that by reading the comments at the bottom of the article there would be a few well wishers who would wish him a complete and speedy recovery. Sadly, there would appear to be a few villages missing their resident idiot.
Perhaps it is inevitable because footballers get so much negative press these days, sometimes rightly, often not so. You hear plenty of stories of top flight footballers getting into scrapes or being greedy, although strangely the papers very rarely report on the vast amounts of work they do for charitable causes and helping the sick and needy, of which there are plenty of examples. I guess that doesn't fit the agenda of the popular press, but because this doesn't get much press coverage, people's perceptions of footballers are obviously distorted because they are only seeing one side of the story.
Anyway, back to the topic. Hot on the heels of the Steven Gerrard story in the national press last week, people no doubt just read the story as being "footballer gets into a fight". As the incident reportedly happened in Crawley so the Argus tell us, and the team that Mr Armstrong represents were playing in Crawley earlier that day, one commentator to the Argus's comments box indicated that this had incited trouble because "Eastbourne had beaten Crawley earlier in the day", or words to that effect. Quite apart from this being factually untrue, as Crawley actually won the match 1-0, what has this got to do with anything? So if you play football against Crawley, you should not have a night out in Crawley afterwards? Quite apart from wondering where you would go for a night out in Crawley, why should someone's profession dictate where they can or cannot have a drink? Admittedly, if Gary Neville went for a night out in Liverpool, I would advise he sports a disguise in order to protect his safety, but Crawley and Eastbourne do not have a hostile rivalry to compare with Liverpool and Manchester United, or Celtic and Rangers.
Because of the Gerrard story breaking so recently, of which no-one knows the full facts, and the catalogue of previous misdemeanours involving top flight players, readers seem to automatically assume that the footballer caused the trouble and that they shouldn't have been out drinking anyway. A few points to consider here. This incident happened a few hours after a match and the team's next match wasn't for another 4 days. Why shouldn't the player be out having a drink? After the adrenalin rush of a match during the day, I'd imagine many footballers, certainly in the semi-pro ranks like to wind down by having a couple of pints and a curry with friends or loved ones in the evening. That doesn't mean they are going to get raving drunk and pick a fight. Secondly, we are talking about a semi-professional player. These are guys who only earn a smidgeon of their income through kicking a ball on a Saturday afternoon and have other jobs too. When you consider the time they spend training on top of doing their regular jobs and packing in plenty of games in a cramped fixture schedule, semi-professional hardly does many of these players justice. They might not have made the grade as a top flight player but they play for the enjoyment of the game.
With this in mind, windows of opportunity to have a drink and to relax do not come around often during the year. Even over Christmas, semi-pro footballers do not get the luxury of a couple of weeks off that many office workers do because the tradition of football in this country is that Boxing Day and New Year's Day matches are the best attended in the season. They are as much part of the Christmas tradition as turkey sandwiches or tinsel. With a few day's grace and in the aftermath of a match, it really shouldn't be seen as a big deal that a player is out having a drink, or minding his own business. You somehow expect that there are some people who expect players to live the life of a monk between matches, but I would invite them to join the real world.
However Paul Armstrong came to be on the receiving end in this incident, it seems churlish to point the finger at him just because of his profession. Again, the full facts of this have not been reported, but surely the main thing is that someone has been the victim of a crime that has been perpetrated by someone else. Instead of the self-righteous questioning people's lifestyle choices, it would be much better if they just condemned the fact that a simple pleasure such as a night out seems not to be possible sometimes because of the actions of the minority. I would like to wish Paul Armstrong a full and speedy recovery, I wonder if The Argus would like to do the same.
Through flicking through other news stories on The Argus website you will no doubt come across other examples of bright sparks thinking they know it all and judging people without having any idea. They do it because they can, as there are no repercussions. The Argus's website seems sadly lacking in any form of moderation and people seem to be able to say pretty much what they want to, as long as it is not racist. Because there is no moderation and no checking of posts, what deterrent is there for people who want to abuse the privilege of free speech in order to spout absolute garbage?
The Argus have helped to create this monster in this instance through their sensationalist headline writing, although as I said at the beginning, I feel this is part of a much wider trend. There is an insatiable appetite amongst all media for the public's opinions to be heard. But the demand for opinion on a whole raft of subjects far outweighs the actual supply of opinions that are considered, balanced and well thought out. The rest of the opinions are formed as a result of what is read in newspapers or on websites, or which they hear or see on television and this coverage is often distorted or leads its audience to form a certain conclusion, depending on their own agendas. People are either too lazy or not well informed enough to think out of the box and so they assume what they read is gospel and this forms their opinion.
This just creates a vicious circle and so cheap news results in cheap opinions. I think it is what is called Garbage In, Garbage Out in computer programming circles. We live in times where we have less time to absorb the news and so want to take in the news in a snapshot. By taking in our news in digestible chunks, it stands to reason that some of the little crumbs commonly known as the facts get dropped on the cutting room floor somewhere. This, allied with the advent of there being 24 hour news and opinion TV and radio channels who have the same items regurgitating each hour and need opinions to fill time results in opinions becoming cheaper in value, if not in price. After all, a text to complain about the day's hot potato costs at least the standard network rate. And what do you end up having to show for it? As a wise man once said, the worst thing about the world are the people who inhabit it.
Anyway, let me know what you think. E-mails should be free and texts will be charged for at the discretion of your network operator.
Apologies for the lack of blogs in the past three weeks or so. Time has been at a premium with the usual pre-Christmas rush of things to do and people to see. I was not helped either by going down with the 'flu for about a week before Christmas. Plenty of it going around it would seem.
There are a few things which I would like to talk about that have been in the news of late and I hope that I will get opportunity to discuss some of these matters in future blog posts.
First things first though. Is it just me or is there a media frenzy these days for the media in any form, be it newspapers, magazines, websites, radio programmes or television programmes to get our opinion on absolutely everything, be it serious topical debate or the completely inane? Turn on Breakfast or GMTV in the morning and to kill the two minutes before cutting to the regional news or the weather and you will get Bill and Sian or Ben and Kate reading out a selection of texts to do with people's opinions on the important story of the day or on something completely trivial, followed by a sentence like "keep your texts coming in" or "we would like to know what you think". Obviously the BBC and ITV have to make money out of texts now that their money making opportunities from suspect competitions have been restricted.
Or, if you turn on the radio, there are entire radio stations devoted to topical debate which would not survive unless the average white van driver or painter and decorator didn't phone in to discuss the state of the economy between jobs. There are also vast numbers of websites out there with discussion forums where people can debate a wide spectrum of topics, depending on what tickles their fancy. Expertise and knowledge of the subject in hand appears to be an optional requirement.
The question is though, does this open invitation for such opinion actually help to have a meaningful debate on important issues, or does it just provide a platform to people who lack the debating skills or indeed the knowledge of the debated subject and which in the end turns the debates into nothing more than pantomimes? Discussions on TV tend to encourage the controversial so to provoke argument, but meaningful conclusions can rarely be drawn from such debates. All the TV companies are looking for are flash points because these will draw people in, everyone likes an old fashioned tear-up, after all and these draw the viewers in. But discussions tend to be rushed so the next topic can be discussed and so no debate ever really reaches a satisfactory conclusion.
Perhaps the worst offenders though are newspaper websites. One daily newspaper encourages its readers to "join the debate", although from memory, the newspaper in question happens to be one that plays with the minds of its readers by scare mongering. But even the quality newspapers provide its readers with the opportunity to contribute comments to any story that they publish online, usually with the proviso that the reader is signed up as a member of their website. This is not a difficult process, as it asks only for your name, e-mail address and for you to provide a username and password, so even someone with the level of intelligence that George W. Bush possesses would be able to sign up.
Now, in one sense this is good because complete strangers can have a debate on any given subject on which they happen to have a mutual interest, if not a shared opinion. But the secret to any such website is that it needs to be moderated. People who post inflammatory remarks or who make comments that deviate from the subject or from the spirit of the use of the comments boxes should have their comments removed. It is not an easy job being a website moderator, as you are seen as a beak, an interfering busybody to compare with traffic wardens or tax collectors. But theirs is a necessary job because otherwise it shows the newspaper whose website it is in a bad light and what started out as a constructive debate turns into a squabble between people of conflicting opinions, but who lack the skills or inclination to debate in a constructive manner.
Generally, the national broadsheet newspapers tend to police the opinion/comments sections of their websites adequately and they encourage free speech while removing anything that is particularly offensive or outrageous. The BBC's website has an even more rigorous process where every post made has to be checked before it is posted on its discussion forums. This goes too far for some people, but clearly free speech is a privilege which some of its beneficiaries choose to abuse through their own ignorance, intolerances or lack of thought.
If you are wondering what particularly stirred me to write about this topic, I would advise you to take a look at The Argus website at www.theargus.co.uk . The Argus, for those who live outside of the Brighton area, is the leading daily newspaper that covers Brighton and Hove and the immediate surrounding area. It reputedly keeps its readers in tune with all the important news in the Brighton area as and when it happens. To give the newspaper its dues, its website does update on a regular basis and any breaking news that occurs during the day very quickly makes it on to their website.
However, if you sense a 'but' coming you would be right. The Argus has become a more sensationalist newspaper in recent years and this is reflected in the way it reports on its stories, often over-dramatising events and also becoming more self-righteous in its editorial pieces, much in the tome you would expect of a national daily tabloid newspaper. If you strip down the nuts and bolts, The Argus has deteriorated in terms of its output in recent years, with over the top headlines, stories of not hugely significant interest and plenty of adverts. I suppose given that people have less time to read the news, this suits them because they can skim read The Argus in a matter of minutes, but it is a sad indictment.
This sensationalist output from The Argus has a knock-on effect as it influences the quality of opinion from its readers and this is particularly evident if you read the comments that get posted in response to the stories carried on The Argus website. I decided to sign up as a member of its discussion forums just before the New Year having been particularly disturbed by the self-righteous and judgemental attitudes voiced by some commentators in response to a story that The Argus had run on its website about a murder victim in the city.
The story related to a man who had been stabbed to death in the early hours in the centre of Brighton. My first reaction on hearing about this was to be shocked that the incident happened about 10 minutes from where I live and in a street that I must walk up and down at least a couple of times a week. Anyway, The Argus reported that people living near the scene had heard a commotion a few minutes earlier and that a drunk sounding person was heard to sing football songs in the vicinity.
Now, no-one can really be sure what led to the circumstances of the man's murder until further evidence comes to light and any prosecution takes place. But, due to The Argus rather helpfully reporting this commotion, it has led to the amateur Poirots amongst The Argus's readership to go online and stick in their two penneth, including saying that the victim "must have asked for trouble", in some way assuming that the victim was singing the songs in question, some asking "why was he out at that time of night?" as the murder supposedly occurred in the early hours of the morning while another upon reading that the victim was unemployed, asked why the victim was out drinking at that time of night when he wouldn't have an income to do so, when there is no firm evidence to suggest the person who had been stabbed had been out drinking, but again this had been assumed on the basis of The Argus's article.
These, and other such thought provoking comments can be found in response to the story that The Argus originally ran on this subject, while a comment from joeinbrighton can also be read which asked that The Argus firstly did more to moderate comments on its website so to put a stop to rent-an-idiot putting the world to rights and secondly which asked those who live in greenhouses not to throw stones and to respect the dead and their family and friends, regardless of how they came to be taken from this world, without resorting to cheap shots and snap judgements. I doubt my intervention will make much difference, but these kinds of comments come about as a result of cheap journalism and media who are all too ready to invite opinion without any attention given to quality control.
In fact, I know that my comments in response to the previous article made no difference as I checked back into the Argus website earlier and read some comments in response to another article, this time about a semi-professional footballer who plays for Eastbourne Borough who was admitted to hospital a few days ago after suffering a wound to his head that caused a clot to his brain. From The Argus story it would appear that the footballer in question, Paul Armstrong, was the victim of an attack or a fight in the vicinity of a pub in Crawley which resulted in him receiving this blow to the head which could have had fatal consequences.
I read this article with some interest as a good friend of mine is a team-mate of Mr Armstrong's at Eastbourne Borough and I had wondered why he had not played in a match that I had been to earlier in the week. I don't know Paul Armstrong personally, although I have met him and he would seem to be a nice guy on the surface, so it was sad to hear of his predicament. I hoped that by reading the comments at the bottom of the article there would be a few well wishers who would wish him a complete and speedy recovery. Sadly, there would appear to be a few villages missing their resident idiot.
Perhaps it is inevitable because footballers get so much negative press these days, sometimes rightly, often not so. You hear plenty of stories of top flight footballers getting into scrapes or being greedy, although strangely the papers very rarely report on the vast amounts of work they do for charitable causes and helping the sick and needy, of which there are plenty of examples. I guess that doesn't fit the agenda of the popular press, but because this doesn't get much press coverage, people's perceptions of footballers are obviously distorted because they are only seeing one side of the story.
Anyway, back to the topic. Hot on the heels of the Steven Gerrard story in the national press last week, people no doubt just read the story as being "footballer gets into a fight". As the incident reportedly happened in Crawley so the Argus tell us, and the team that Mr Armstrong represents were playing in Crawley earlier that day, one commentator to the Argus's comments box indicated that this had incited trouble because "Eastbourne had beaten Crawley earlier in the day", or words to that effect. Quite apart from this being factually untrue, as Crawley actually won the match 1-0, what has this got to do with anything? So if you play football against Crawley, you should not have a night out in Crawley afterwards? Quite apart from wondering where you would go for a night out in Crawley, why should someone's profession dictate where they can or cannot have a drink? Admittedly, if Gary Neville went for a night out in Liverpool, I would advise he sports a disguise in order to protect his safety, but Crawley and Eastbourne do not have a hostile rivalry to compare with Liverpool and Manchester United, or Celtic and Rangers.
Because of the Gerrard story breaking so recently, of which no-one knows the full facts, and the catalogue of previous misdemeanours involving top flight players, readers seem to automatically assume that the footballer caused the trouble and that they shouldn't have been out drinking anyway. A few points to consider here. This incident happened a few hours after a match and the team's next match wasn't for another 4 days. Why shouldn't the player be out having a drink? After the adrenalin rush of a match during the day, I'd imagine many footballers, certainly in the semi-pro ranks like to wind down by having a couple of pints and a curry with friends or loved ones in the evening. That doesn't mean they are going to get raving drunk and pick a fight. Secondly, we are talking about a semi-professional player. These are guys who only earn a smidgeon of their income through kicking a ball on a Saturday afternoon and have other jobs too. When you consider the time they spend training on top of doing their regular jobs and packing in plenty of games in a cramped fixture schedule, semi-professional hardly does many of these players justice. They might not have made the grade as a top flight player but they play for the enjoyment of the game.
With this in mind, windows of opportunity to have a drink and to relax do not come around often during the year. Even over Christmas, semi-pro footballers do not get the luxury of a couple of weeks off that many office workers do because the tradition of football in this country is that Boxing Day and New Year's Day matches are the best attended in the season. They are as much part of the Christmas tradition as turkey sandwiches or tinsel. With a few day's grace and in the aftermath of a match, it really shouldn't be seen as a big deal that a player is out having a drink, or minding his own business. You somehow expect that there are some people who expect players to live the life of a monk between matches, but I would invite them to join the real world.
However Paul Armstrong came to be on the receiving end in this incident, it seems churlish to point the finger at him just because of his profession. Again, the full facts of this have not been reported, but surely the main thing is that someone has been the victim of a crime that has been perpetrated by someone else. Instead of the self-righteous questioning people's lifestyle choices, it would be much better if they just condemned the fact that a simple pleasure such as a night out seems not to be possible sometimes because of the actions of the minority. I would like to wish Paul Armstrong a full and speedy recovery, I wonder if The Argus would like to do the same.
Through flicking through other news stories on The Argus website you will no doubt come across other examples of bright sparks thinking they know it all and judging people without having any idea. They do it because they can, as there are no repercussions. The Argus's website seems sadly lacking in any form of moderation and people seem to be able to say pretty much what they want to, as long as it is not racist. Because there is no moderation and no checking of posts, what deterrent is there for people who want to abuse the privilege of free speech in order to spout absolute garbage?
The Argus have helped to create this monster in this instance through their sensationalist headline writing, although as I said at the beginning, I feel this is part of a much wider trend. There is an insatiable appetite amongst all media for the public's opinions to be heard. But the demand for opinion on a whole raft of subjects far outweighs the actual supply of opinions that are considered, balanced and well thought out. The rest of the opinions are formed as a result of what is read in newspapers or on websites, or which they hear or see on television and this coverage is often distorted or leads its audience to form a certain conclusion, depending on their own agendas. People are either too lazy or not well informed enough to think out of the box and so they assume what they read is gospel and this forms their opinion.
This just creates a vicious circle and so cheap news results in cheap opinions. I think it is what is called Garbage In, Garbage Out in computer programming circles. We live in times where we have less time to absorb the news and so want to take in the news in a snapshot. By taking in our news in digestible chunks, it stands to reason that some of the little crumbs commonly known as the facts get dropped on the cutting room floor somewhere. This, allied with the advent of there being 24 hour news and opinion TV and radio channels who have the same items regurgitating each hour and need opinions to fill time results in opinions becoming cheaper in value, if not in price. After all, a text to complain about the day's hot potato costs at least the standard network rate. And what do you end up having to show for it? As a wise man once said, the worst thing about the world are the people who inhabit it.
Anyway, let me know what you think. E-mails should be free and texts will be charged for at the discretion of your network operator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
