A Homage to Montage

I've been busy lately but found time to make this. Here's a link to a Spotify playlist I made of overplayed Xfactor Montage songs; songs which never seem to get old and seem to shine a good light on a mediocre contestant. A homage to a show which really does produce a mighty good montage:

XFactor Montage Spotify Playlist

Let me know if I've missed anything...

9/11 Wikileaks - An indecent release?

Today, wikileaks began releasing "pager intercepts" gathered from over 500,000 individually sent messages before, during and after the 9/11 attacks in North America in 2001. Indeed, since 0300 (US Eastern Time) this morning pager records as the day unfolded in New York prior to and following the first plane striking the world trade centre on 9/11 have been released. Furthermore, they're being released in "real-time", in 5-minute intervals, so viewers can follow events as they happened. I must admit to release such information publicly in this fashion seems a little perverse and objectionable. I guess there's no better way to describe this "real-time" leak from wikileaks and the reporting surrounding it than as "morbid voyeurism".

Of course, wikileaks probably justifies its decision to release such information on the grounds of public importance. Apparently, we need to know what really happened that day so we can have a better understanding of how the tragedy occurred and how mankind responded. One thing is certain - you cannot describe their leak as sympathetic. The tone surrounding the release seems to be one of a group that is relishing in their own controversy:

"Due to popular demand we provide a new block of pager data every 5 minutes, synchronized to the actual time of day the message was sent.

This way the world has a chance to objectively see how the tragedy progressed."

"Due to popular demand" - this crudely sounds like they've just released a few extra tour dates for their sold out venture. Indeed, why does the world need a chance to objectively see how the "tragedy progressed" in another form when it already has once before.

Wikileaks can be useful as a medium for the release of valuable information from 'super-grasses' and 'whistleblowers'. However, the release of this data seems to add little to any debate surrounding 9/11 (besides perhaps countering a few conspiracy theories surrounding the days events). Surely in this case, the sensitive issue of releasing personal data from both public and private citizens outweighs any advantages of its release in this format.

An example of some of the data being released:

2001-09-11 08:54:44 Skytel [00455____] B ALPHA opsunit@nypd.org|1 PCT WORLD TRADE CENTER|--- 1 PCT - WORLD TRADE CENTER - POSSIBLE EXPLOSION WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING. LEVEL 3 MOBILIZATION TO CHURCH AND VESSY.

View Larger Map

Arguably some data, such as the above which may illustrate the exact time at which NYPD units were paged to the scene of the incident under the WTC, may be useful in piecing together the days events. However, other data coinciding in this release includes private messages from worried children, partners and family who have relatives inside a building or vice versa. For the sake of decency and my argument I will not be repeating examples of some of these messages.

In reality, many spectators to this data release are revelling in discovering messages which record horrific personal details from the incident. In my opinion, these messages should have remained unread and resided with the ashes of the tower itself rather than being churned up for the world to have "a chance to objectively see how the tragedy progressed". The world has already "objectively" witnessed this tragedy in one form or another and this argument cannot be used to defend the release of private information.

You can follow #911txts on twitter as the day progresses if you want. You can witness as the spectacle progresses in "real-time" courtesy of Wikileaks and Tweets.

Thierry Henry Controversy and Roy Keane Empathy (or lack of)

Thierry Henry's Wikipedia gets a make over after his recent hand plucked denial of a France-Ireland fair result:

Need I say any more? Click for a larger view.

Roy Keane typically managed to emphasise with the Ireland squad, fans and country. He had the following to say, "France are going to the world cup. Get over it."

You can "send Fifa an email" here.

Farmville: Is it all a "scam"?

Look at this evil Farmville avatar as he grins widely with your cash in his back pocket. He's got a nice cash crop; over 60million users worldwide are signed up to the "free" social game. But how did the cash get there in the first place? You freely gave it to him. That's right, the impatient amongst us chose to pay for extra features to advance further and faster in the game. So where's the victim?

Social Gaming sites have been around a long time. I remember spending hours on Habbo Hotel when I was younger. And yes, I freely gave some of my money to buy some tacky virtual furniture to pad out my room. I was the sultan in the hotel, spending my parents cash on flash gear through my pay as you go mobile like there was no tomorrow. Should I not have paid for services on the site? Maybe. Should I not have spent with my mobile phone paid for by my parents? Definitely. Did I know I was doing wrong? Of course.

TechCrunch recently broke this story and Guardian have since contributed. Essentially Zynga's  Farmville is riddled with scams, mainly taking the form of surveys where the user gives his mobile details to a company in exchange for currency on the popular game. In some cases, this results in users being sent irrelevant texts charged at premium rates from the survey company, which quickly burns a hole in the consumers wallet. The deceptive nature of these offers, which TechCrunch go into detail clear detail about, certainly make them a "scam" by the very definition.

Scam - verb: to swindle (someone) by means of a trick

However, what I disagree with is the idea that the sheer concept of the game and the fact that it has been monetised makes it all bad. What I don't see as troublesome, is the idea that adults and children freely use their mobiles, credit cards or paypal accounts to directly purchase virtual cash for the game directly from Zynga or other service providers.

The prevailing counterargument is that the game is addictive in nature and set up in order to encourage players to get hooked and give up their own, or their parents, cash. Admittedly, as the game progresses it takes increasingly more effort to reach new levels, which can easily make users feel frustrated and lead them with the urge to use their own cash to enhance their online gaming experience. However, if they do decide to purchase game currency to advance, isn't it their own decision? And as for those young, easily influenced users, isn't it a parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are signed up to and when they are spending money without their permission?

"But wait a second, this product is targeted at children! And it's immoral to pray on a child's naivety," chimes a concerned parent. But since when were 'games' not targeted at children? The occurrence of deceptive behaviour is clearly on a child's behalf and not on the games company or mobile phone payment providers who've decided to monetised social gaming. The child realises there's a technological generation gap that separates them from their parents. They have grown up with the internet, computer games and social networking; their older and non-wiser parents have not. I hedge to bet that in many cases that the child knowingly takes advantage of their parent's ignorance.

Fortunately, their actions can be controlled through proper education and monitoring from their parents, especially in cases where children under-16 freely surf the web and use social networking services without supervision.

What parents should be aiming to do is emulate their child's web activity. They should get stuck into social networking and test the water of these games and their marketing strategies. Only then will they be better informed to advise their children on the suspect nature of online advertising and the importance of retaining important personal information. Most importantly they'll be able to tell them the age old philosophy that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true", which applies in the real world, also applies to the internet.

Parental ignorance is not an excuse. Now I'm off to go plant some Strawberry seeds.

Hipocrisy: The Daily Mail guns down comedy and freedom of expression

Short of wanting to turn this blog into a devotion to Daily Mail bashing, what is it with this paper's attraction toward the demise of the BBC, comedy and Freedom of Expression?

Little more than a fortnight since the infamous Jan Moir publication, which even gained a mention on Question Time, The Mail displays the dials of its moral compass are still working by hounding comedian's for apologies and calling upon their resignation for making jokes,  admittedly offensive ones. Is this familiar Mail approach not clearly hypocritical now in light of recent events?

An article about a "Repentant Jimmy Carr" illustrates the full force of The Mail's agenda; to hush up those who tread on the toes of public decency. In addition to one-sided, hand picked sources, the article is riddled with unnecessary reminders of the 'Sachsgate' affair as The Mail mounts its lobbying pressures against the BBC through tedious links. In case you weren't aware, "Carr is a friend of TV presenter Jonathan Ross, who was last year suspended by the BBC following a row over obscene phone calls...to actor Andrew Sachs" didn't you know? He's a co-conspirator, a comedian sympathiser and to be rounded up and tied to the stake where we will all not laugh at him. Well, maybe if this were an old fashioned witch hunt he would be.

Implicitly, Jan Moir and The Daily Mail used the Freedom of Expression argument, which Bonnie Greer uses in the above Question Time clip, to defend themselves for publishing their article. And rightly so. In my opinion, a regulated world with stringent rules on avoiding offensive would be pretty boring and dangerous, Yet, as The Mail takes with one hand, they are expected to give with the other; they should recognise that Freedom of Expression is also a necessary liberty to be granted to comedians.

If Jan Moir can defend that, "it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable", then why can't Frankie Boyle defend his right to make inappropriate jokes about a celebrity like Rebecca Adlington - after all that's just his opinion. In case you are yet to read it, this is the latest installment of what we are being told to be offended about by The Mail. Alternatively, you can view the clip and miss out the regurgitation of hapless spoon quotes.

We are told the Adlington row "will reopen the debate over the BBC's handling of its top-paid entertainers and how far comedians should be allowed to go." What The Daily Mail really meant to say is that they will reopen the debate through their publication of this article and similar articles in the past 7-days, such as the one on Carr's amputee joke (which was not featured on television).

I do not deny that Adlington has a right to complain about the offensive joke. Just as Gately's family has a right to complain about the offensive Moir article. That being said, if the representation of her attitude in this article is close to the truth then I would advise her to lighten up. Closely analysed, the clip illustrates an awkwardness with other panellists as Boyle makes his comments, and Dara O'Briain hastily puts the issue to bed through a light joke.

Indeed, one might say that comedy can regulate itself; people laugh if they find something funny, they gasp if they don't. And it should probably stay that way.

Sky News on Twitter Phenomenon

Twitter as a force of democracy and social justice. A very good comment similar to what I have said and remarking on the definite snowball effect of social media reporting. Apologies for poor quality:

Social Media as a Lobbying Phenomenon

The Daily Mail has long been reputed as having poor editorial standards. Indeed, today's edition was marked by a fresh, controversial example and a new low by the paper. The printing of Jan Moir's article, Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's Death illustrates poor judgement and underlying homophobic opinions that exist within the paper. In short, Moir moves from the premise of 'suspicious' circumstances surrounding Gately's death to a denouncement of civil partnerships and a 'dangerous lifestyle'.

The interesting phenomenon surrounding this article's publication is the Internet's ability to mass lobby. It seems that Jan Moir, who lacks a Twitter account, may have bitten off more than she can chew with this publication.

Only until a few years ago, the idea that like-minded liberals could share information, publications, comments and opinions instantaneously was unfathomable. Now, with the assistance of social media, opinions spread like wildfire through the web.

"Tweets" on Twitter started early in the morning before some big influencers added to the debate. For those of you unaware, Stephen Fry has near 850,000 followers on Twitter. That's a greater population of world citizens following him than there are people in Luxembourg and Iceland combined. Twitter works so that everyone following Fry receives his messages so long as they are connected to the service via a computer or phone. At approximately 12GMT, Fry tweeted the following in reference to Moir's article:

"I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane."

With some independent investigative work and links provided by Fry to various other online blogs who had commented on the article in the following hours, it soon become obvious who the target of controversy was.

Unluckily for Jan Moir she has probably barely heard, nor contemplated using Twitter, but the service allows a worldwide audience to comment and complain about her article of contempt, sharing links to the Press Complaints Commission directly. It was only a matter of time until Moir realised the backlash she had caused and issued an apology through press release. A sensitive subject had been poked at, the dignity of a man's death scathed, and a family's peace disturbed by conjecture on the eve of their son's funeral. Furthermore, a global audience witnessed her cynicism and ignorance.

The question is, will the lobbying by Fry et al through their tweets mean that disciplinary action for The Daily Mail and Moir comes sooner and more efficiently than in the past. Only time will tell. That said, social media provides an interesting new tool to champion expression and agenda. And the phenomenon also manages to make issues like this hit the national news, highlighting the negatives of intolerance.

One negative consequence of the lobbying is that The Daily Mail has received so much traffic to an article that should not have even passed editorial standards that they must be profiteering from advertising in some sad way. We can only hope that in the future online news media sources are not rewarded for their indecency.

As the day wore on Daily Mail pulled advertising from their websites. M&S and Nestlé in particular objected to their products being placed beside the advert for the reason that it . However, findaproperty.com, a part of the Daily Mail group, reappeared beside the controversial article later in the day, which had since changed its title.

You can follow Jon Doe Comment on Twitter.

Update 15:31 - Daily Mail changes title of article in attempt to reduce backlash - Title now reads "A strange, lonely and troubling death." Key offensive conjecture still remain
Update 16:09 - Google Ads still remain by offensive article allowing Daily Mail to continue to profiteer from online traffic.
Update 17:00 - Charlie Brooker and Guardian cleverly add to the online debate.
Update 17:30 - Stephen Fry quotes Moir comments, "[It's] mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.” You be the judge of that.
Update: 18:45 - Findaproperty.com advertisement reappears beside advert. Daily Mail profits from infamy.
Update: 19:20 - BBC reports complaints to PCC "approaching a record" tonight after Moir fallout.
Update: 17/10 - PCC adds Moir specific link.

An argument for reigning in the media?

This is Glenn Beck, American political commentator and right-wing propaganda extraordinaire, talking about the "war" of engagement between Fox News and the US government. Evidently, he's a bit more of an emotional man than Goebbels, but still an efficient distributor of Fox's lobbying agenda despite his softer touch. For those new to the debate, Fox is essentially an American news station owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which serves to champion right-wing, free market philosophies and  undermine every action the democratically-elected Democratic government makes.

The concerning thing this video shows is a dilution of the expected relationship between journalists and politicians, the media and the White House; a relationship that should be based on mutual respect and the pursuit of facts and truth. Instead, we see a media company applying little editorial control over its live output and in the process channelling the rants of a sociopath. I guess the only relaxing aspect of these emotional outbursts is that they occur around 2am in the morning, when most American's are in bed.

The raving lunacy of Beck and his Fox colleagues has long caught the attention of the international media. In the UK, Charlie Brooker recently produced a very amusing description of the news station as leaning more to the right "than a man whose just had his right-leg blown off". You can view more of his evaluation of American News in the adjacent clip, including some brilliant moments of Beck's 'socialist' paranoia toward the end.

The biased portrayal of Republican ideology on Fox has finally become so much of an irritant for Obama and the White House that they have refused to indulge in interviews about health care reform with the network. A move which seems only too sensible, when rational argument seems to be something that Fox simply cannot deal in at the moment.

Anita Dunn, communications director for the White House said, "The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party...what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party."

This leads me to posit, does there ever come a point when news content contravenes ethical conventions so much that it needs to be reigned in? If ever there were a case, then surely Beck et Fox News provide the perfect example. News via television is still the most consumed format in the Western world, and with viewers tending to believe what they hear, does conjecture and biased opinion not pose serious damage to the reliability of journalism and mislead the public in the long-term?

America in many senses is lucky. Though it possesses partisan news stations, a variety of choice still exists for viewers to tune out. This choice is clearly diminished in other Western countries, such as Italy where pictured Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi actually owns the majority of national channels. Berlusconi's main company Mediaset comprises three national television channels, which together have approximately half the national viewing audience. It is not even a matter of argument whether this means he has an influence on voting patterns in Italian general elections.

Greater regulation is necessary in both America and Europe on what the media churns out due to political bias, although the extent to which its pursuit is necessary clearly differs in each case. What is particular sad about the American case is that a country often renowned for its integrity is blemished by the mark of a few.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/anita-dunn-fox-news-an-ou_n_316691.html

Bedtime Stories

I realise that CO2 emissions are a pretty big problem when it comes to climate change. This is the new "Act On CO2" advert designed to sensitively nudge us into changing our energy habits. I like the way they've used the  bedtime story theme to target middle age sympathies. I even like the way that this child isn't allowed to watch television at night to cut down on emissions. However, I still think this advert is lacking something that will galvanise a change in ethics of the general middle aged demographic.

(1) It's too clever - it appeared in the middle of Coronation St. when people are more concerned with what's happening in the Rovers in about 3 and half minutes, rather than 10 years from now.
(2) It's equates climate change to a detached fairy tale through the narrative providing no facts and no realistic hypothesis.

(3) And finally it's just lacking that shock factor - perhaps the child would have been better off reading that book to her guilt ridden father and then dying in a drought.

Just a thought.

And who elected Bono Supreme Leader?

"Behold your overlord!" cries Bono, as Conservatives looks on bewildered.

Politics took a turn for the worse today when celebrity endorsement reared its ugly head. The Conservative Party Conference was interrupted by the intrusion of the omnipresent and omni-benevolent Bono who arrived bellowing a decree from the Gods.

He spoke of a post-Labour, Conservative party upholding Labour's promises to alleviate world poverty by keeping international aid spending at a target of 0.7% GDP per annum. The Tories lapped up Bono the Benevolent's every word, but secretly scoffed, 'Why would we give to the third world when our own children are due our hard earned cash to the tune of a £2 million inheritance.'

The raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £2million is just one of a number of new policies cited by the Conservatives with the intention of fixing Broken Britain. Of course, despite their best intentions to persuade Britain's richest working class, single mum's to stay with their partners, their policy only benefits rich, married couples, where coaxing people into staying together with financial incentives isn't really an issue of epidemic proportions at all. And as the rich benefit from tax-breaks, the funding of Bono's make poverty history campaign, if to be met, must be gained from substantial cuts in other needy services if the Conservatives are to meet their deficit crunching promise. What Bono make of all this?

William Hague introduced Bono as someone "you don't normally hear from at Conservative conferences". By this I presume he means someone with a sympathy toward social justice.

Unfortunately the limitations of this joke are all to assured. It seems that social justice only interests justice supremo Bono on a worldly level. Bono himself has undoubtedly been linked to tax evasion hypocrisy in the past, depriving his native state the ability to redistribute from the rich to the poor. And with that in mind it's no doubt that Bono shares something in common with the Conservatives - Compassionate Capitalism.

Day 6 of Unemployment - Updates

Things are moving on in the world.

Update 1: Refused jobseekers allowance.
Update 2: Received confirmation from Guinness World Records that they will be getting back in touch with me in the next 4 weeks. And that is binding.
Update 3: Applied for M&S job.
Update 4: Nazi-Cats

With all that new information to bear in mind I'll not lampoon you with too much else today.

JD

Day 3 of Unemployment - Soap Addication

Since having a lot of spare time on my hands recently, I've been watching a lot more BBC iplayer. Conveniently enough BBC screened a special episode of Eastenders on Thursday 1st October featuring London Major Boris Johnson in a typical Old Vic setting. You can watch the full episode here if you like, but I wouldn't bother; it's a pretty awful intrusion of reality into a soap and the highlights have already been carefully captured in this short youtube clip:

Now there's a few things about this scene that bother me. Firstly, I agree with Peggy that it is a bit of a coincidence or, as she puts it, "lucky that Boris' bike got a puncture isn't it?" And that's the problem! I mean really, come on! Could the producers not have thought up any more of an ingenious reason for Boris to enter the pub then that? This sloppy, bipartisan publicity attempt between the Beeb and Johnson looks as awkward as a duck on ice.

As long as they want to blend the realities of life and fiction together we might as well question Peggy a little more about this incident. Yeah right Peggy, I'm sure you had nothing to do with it, and that devilish glean in your eye is nothing more than enchantment with London's most dashing man. "Lucky for me" he gained a puncture my arse, you evil and despicable fiend!

A more important issue with this "celebrity" appearance, given the MP's party bias, is that the BBC has avidly given the conservative party a national platform before their Manchester Conference and the spring General Election. Admittedly, the role Boris played kept political bias to a minimum, yet still, isn't this just as bad as product placement advertising?

A lot of people know that Johnson is affiliated with the Conservative party and a gracious portrayal of a "Compassionate" Conservative on screen fulfils the Cameron & Co. PR bandwagon dream. Just like watching the judges of American idol drink Coke makes me thirsty for carbonated drinks, seeing Johnson really makes me believe that the Conservatives care for deprived areas like Walthamstow in the East End, where the place Walford (or Wartford as it sounds when channelled through the Major phonetics) is based on. Notably, in the last general election Walthamstow elected a Labour MP, not a Conservative one.

I am not implying that this portrayal is going to directly effect the results of the next general election. What I am arguing is that cameo roles in mass marketed soaps can affect public opinion.

And why is Mr. Johnson drinking a pint when he plans on cycling home?

Day 2 of Unemployment - "Is M&S right for me?"

Graduate employment marketing is a pretty strange affair. People want to convince you to work for them and that they're providing the best offer in the market. Glancing through some retail management schemes at various high street department stores, the M&S Trainee Management scheme provides the best example of cunning marketing yet. It's essentially designed to make the prospect of working for them as irresistible as their food.

What seems so indulging about this graduate scheme is that uses already established brand advertising to promote itself; an advertising campaign most closely related with the sale of melt in the middle chocolate deserts in the past. If salivation over Belgian puds doesn't satisfy your desire enough to seriously consider M&S as the right choice for you then don't worry. M&S also provide their own psychometric test to establish whether you have what it takes for the job.

When branded as a "This is not just any", unique product this quiz sounds like the biz when in reality it's far from that. If you think that M&S are going to offer you ancient secrets to focus your inner zen as I had hoped from this introduction then you're going to be disappointed.

You can take the M&S quiz online if you really want to. You might even discover that M&S is the right career for you in the process. But don't hold your breath for anything extraordinary because this quiz is just as generic as the carefully marketed products they sell.

Day 1 of Unemployment (17:59 it's Guinness Time)

Woke up today exhilarated and with a new lease of life. What's more interesting than having nothing to do with your day - unlimited opportunities await!

I made some beans and sausages for lunch. Yum. Felt this was a pretty good, economical meal that any unemployed person would eat (that's one destitute point to me). Packed with fibre and one of your five-a-day... beans (will have to check that up later).

I sat at the table, fork to mouth in thought about what I could possibly achieve in all my new found spare time.

Task 1: Guinness World Records

Always wanted to be in the Guinness World Records and had a fantastic idea the other morning so I decided to check out how easy it is to submit a suggestion for a new record on the GWR website. Turns out it's ridiculously easy that such a simpleton like myself can even contribute a new "ground breaking" idea for a world record. My concept was basically this:

See how many hours I can repeatedly hit snooze on my alarm clock for without going crazy or developing tinnitus.

I was elated to find that, although someone had already decided that seeing "How many alarm clocks I can smash with my feet in one minute" was a good idea, no one had yet to suggest such a ground breaking feat as the one that had just sprung to me that previous morning. What ensues is my response to the application question: what record (current or potentially new) are you interested in?

"New Record: Longest period of 'snooze' pressing on an alarm clock.

Everyone knows how annoying the snooze feature is on an alarm clock! It wakes most people up in the world every morning! I want to attempt to do something fun involving the snooze alarm. I want to set the record for the person who is able to sit through repeated snooze alarms the longest, which as far as I can gather is an innovative new record.

The record is simple to measure. The stopwatch begins when an alarm sets off at approximately 0800 in the morning. The usual time I get up. Please note, this time may vary for other competitors and may depend on their time zones.

As all alarms are different and therefore snooze times may vary, I propose a standardised snooze period of 5minutes between each alarm chime to ensure maximum frustration for the participant.

The record is to be measured by the longest period of time in hours and minutes the person in bed can remain sleeping and turning off the intermittent alarm from the first time it chimes. Therefore, the record is essentially based on endurance, because everyone knows that alarm clock chimes are annoying and they're designed to get people out of bed (not to stay in one!).

The reason that I want to complete this record is because I've recently became unemployed since finishing University and have began a blog to record significant events in my unemployed days to make sure people know that I'm using my time effectively.
Therefore please diligently consider my application for a truly unique record attempt.

Jon Doe
P.S. From a publication point of view I would be willing to be photographed in my pj's, wearing a night cap, clutching a teddy bear whilst attempting the record."

I thought that they'd especially appreciate those final commitments. From here on in the process is simple. They plan on reviewing my innovative new suggestion for the Guinness Book of Records with the view to getting back in touch in the next 4-6 weeks... I'll keep you updated.