Waiting for Leveson

This week, Lord Justice Leveson will unveil his findings on standards and ethics in the British press, and somewhat predictably, there will be a growing number of people arguing in favour of statutory underpinning of the press. There can be no question that the Press Complaints Commission requires significant reform, but regarding statutory underpinning of the press as a panacea would be greatly misguided.

Irrespective of whether you are for it or against it, it is worth keeping at least one thing in mind: offences such as phone hacking and police bribery are already covered by existing laws, and statutory underpinning would have offered little in a situation where people in positions of power and responsibility knowingly broke those laws.

On higher education

Increasingly, I have found great difficulty thinking of higher education in the United Kingdom – and in particular my own university – without singing the chorus to The Animals’ “We gotta get out of this place”.

Once upon a time, such outbursts may have been mere parapraxes. Nowadays they feel more like unabashed cris de coeur.

I have no doubt that there are hundreds – if not thousands – of written pieces seeking to analyse the rights and wrongs of higher education. For me to attempt my own analysis would require far more time than I could reasonably spare. That said, with all that I experience on a regular basis, I find myself arriving at the same disheartening conclusion: that a great many clever people – staff and students alike – are being woefully let down by universities that, far from helping them, often seem to do more to hinder them.

In “Reflections on life”, Alexis Carrel wrote, “The first duty of society is to give each of its members the possibility of fulfilling his destiny. When it becomes incapable of performing this duty it must be transformed”.

If the above can also be said of higher education, then surely the time for its transformation has come. If universities are to remain relevant and meaningful in the future, and if they are to contribute anything of value to global society as a whole, then there will be no option but to transform. If they do not, then many British universities may become so myopic and backward that they do more to repel talent instead of attracting and developing it.

The warning signs, worryingly, are already there.

On ‘visual’ photographs

A friend of mind was recently teased for suggesting that a writer can give life to a momentary visual photograph that affected them in some way. The focus of the teasing – predictably – concerned the idea that a photograph should be anything other than visual.

I would argue that the notion of a ‘visual’ photograph is actually quite plausible. A ‘photograph’ indicates something tangible; something we cannot experience unless we can hold it and view it. Yet a writer can draw inspiration from thousands of places, people and experiences merely by seeing with the mind.

Perhaps someone lived through an event or period that profoundly shaped their being. Their urge to document those experiences and make sense of them would no doubt be influenced heavily by those ‘visual’ photographs of the mind…

… that which we cannot touch, yet are touched by every moment of our lives.

If bandwagon jumping was an Olympic event…

… then allow me to introduce you to the man who would undoubtedly be one of Britain’s gold medal hopefuls: Keith Vaz, Labour Party politician and Member of Parliament for the Leicester East constituency.

In recent times, Mr Vaz has had rather a high media profile, taking every opportunity to voice his views on subjects as diverse as security concerns ahead of the London 2012 Olympics, passenger queues at Heathrow Airport, the NHS annual report and care objectives, and the allegations of bullying and racist remarks reported to have been made in the latest series of the reality television programme “Big Brother”.

On top of this, the right honourable member for Leicester East has managed to keep his media profile high by making comments on the Rochdale grooming trial, and by publicly stating that he would attend the Anuj Bidve murder trial. And there was his twenty-fifth anniversary in Parliament, celebrated with high profile movie star guests Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan. And there was his call for more stringent government controls on violent video games. And of course, his comments on the deportation of Abu Qatada. And his comments on the Babar Ahmad extradition case. And his comments on phone hacking. And his comments on banning junk food.

All of this gives the impression that Vaz’s media profile is akin to an exploding paint factory. Even in the most remote or unlikely corner of the news agenda, there seems to be yet another trace of Vaz splattered all over it. Rather than succumb to the temptation of simply lapsing into a coma in a desperate attempt to block it all out, I instead remembered a piece published on the blog of the comedian and author Alexei Sayle who commented, “My thoughts continue to dwell on Stephen Fry.  If, as I do, you continually flip around the thirty or so Freeview TV channels he can occasionally seem to be on every single one of them.  It’s as if we are living in some capitalist North Korea and he is Kim Jong Fry our glorious leader”. It would appear that even the media colossus that is Kim Jong Fry now has a worthy competitor – of sorts – in the king of the comment Kim Jong Vaz.

Vaz’s apparent lust for media attention was highlighted recently by Marina Hyde in The Guardian, who noted in her article “Why bring Russell Brand to testify to a select committee instead of an expert witness?”, “Any useful idiot even remotely tempted to begin arguing that, as a recovering addict, Brand is a worthy witness is hereby advised to stop being so bally silly. Lost in Showbiz hates to let daylight in on magic, but Brand is not there because of anything he might say. He is there because he will get Vaz and friends on the telly”.

So where could Vaz possibly pop up next? Perhaps he will be seen telling everyone the live odds on the Bet365 adverts. Or maybe he will insist on being ‘Photoshopped’ into various photographs in the style of the series of John Terry spoofs.

Or perhaps we’ll see him on the winners’ podium proudly collecting his gold medal in bandwagon jumping. At present, few deserve it more.

Considering the real meaning of the Olympics

Quite by chance, I happened to find rather an interesting article in the 26th June 2012 edition of the Metro newspaper in the United Kingdom. It was in the “60 Seconds” section, and featured a short question and answer session with the actor Noel Clarke, star of the professional sprinting film ‘Fast Girls’. One particular question – and its accompanying answer – caught my attention:

Q: You were banned from using the word Olympics in Fast Girls – isn’t that a bit ridiculous?

A: It’s a corporate word with connotations and we weren’t allowed to use it. The film’s still out. It’s not a big deal but it was a shame.

Arguably even more thought-provoking than the use of the word ‘Olympics’ being prohibited is that Clarke should have described it as “a corporate word with connotations”. It is interesting that an institution supposedly symbolising the spirit of human endeavour should be described in such dehumanised terms. One wonders then what the connotations of the word ‘Olympics’ really are, and indeed those of the Games as a whole. On the surface, this may not seem so important, yet it can have massive implications both for the Olympics brand and for the manner in which consumers perceive it.

Of course, such connotations would only represent a level of meaning personal to each individual. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that they would be positive if informed by comments such as those above, or indeed by the comments from Clarke in The Huffington Post on 7th June 2012. Worse still if people read through Ira Boudway’s striking Bloomberg Businessweek article “Don’t mess with the Lord of the Olympic rings” from 14th June 2012.

Catherine Lloyd-Evans in The Law Donut drew attention to a fairly lengthy list of restricted terms and phrases associated with the Olympics. When used as a background for Boudway’s article, one is left with the impression of the Olympics being about bullying, browbeating, and measures which appear to do more to honour the severity of Draco than the spirit of inclusion. In a desperate attempt to appease corporate partners, and to eliminate any trace of guerilla marketing, the International Olympic Committee have likely done more to damage the Olympic brand than to protect and develop it. Since it would appear that any unauthorised use of Olympic branding or imagery is forbidden, I chose as a partnering image for this article the portrait of Louis XIV and his family as Olympian Gods by Jean Nocret. I look upon Nocret’s portrait as something genuine; a true achievement which can be admired and enjoyed by all irrespective of wealth or status. Regrettably, I sincerely doubt that the Olympics could lay claim to the same virtues.

Thus, what of the real meaning of the Olympics? Are the Olympics still about striving for glory, of victory in the face of impossible odds? Or have the Olympics simply been reduced to a euphemism for greed, disproportionate power and the ruthless pursuit of money-making?

Perhaps more can be learned from connotations than we might have imagined.

Pakistan: Blocking Twitter, blocking people

It was a peculiar – though perhaps unsurprising – decision by the Pakistani authorities to block access to Twitter owing to what the BBC reported were tweets regarded as “offensive to Islam”. Of far greater surprise though was the decision by the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to then lift the ban on Sunday May 20th, approximately eight hours after it had been imposed. This story was covered by various media throughout the day, with the following report by NewsX being one amongst many:

Globally, the blocking of Twitter in Pakistan is likely to be regarded as a ‘tech’ or media story. In truth, this is a story that goes far beyond those confines. The real story here is not of Twitter being blocked, but of the citizens of Pakistan being failed yet again by narrow-minded and myopic governance. In many instances, those citizens can make themselves meaningfully heard in no arena other than Twitter and other social media like it. That any government should childishly ban such media is indicative of weakness, not strength.

It should not be beyond any modern society to come together in reasoned, balanced discussion of even the most controversial issues. Moreover, difference of opinion should not be considered as something to run away from. I agree that there are many instances of appalling abuse being directed at people through social media, and these incidents have often, wrongly, been met with general indifference. However, merely having a difference of opinion does not constitute abuse, nor indeed does daring to say something which goes against the hegemony that exists within a territory.

It is very easy for the authorities in Pakistan to block Twitter, but it is far harder to block people. Technologies will come and go, but people will always find new and innovative ways of communicating, and of sharing information and perspectives with each other. Politicians of all countries would do well to keep that in mind.

Welcome back Carrie Gracie

It was an absolute pleasure to see Carrie Gracie back as a presenter on the BBC News channel. Having been absent since September 2011 to be treated for cancer, it was wonderful to see her return looking healthy and strong. There are few ‘good’ news stories in the current climate, but I believe this to be one of them.

Aside from being a highly talented journalist and presenter, Carrie Gracie is an example to everyone that cancer can indeed be beaten. I joyfully congratulate her on her return, and wish her the very best in all her future endeavours.