Rocking and Bawling

This morning a sobbing, rocking (not in the musical sense) Jo O Meara gave an interview to GMTV on how Celebrity Big Brother has ruined her life.

I would like to feel sorry for her. I would like to see a gentler approach to pointing out the error of their ways to the three accused, Jo, Jade and Danielle.

However, I don't buy this 'taken out of context' malarkey, nor the 'I laughed 'cos I wuz nervous' line.

After the argument, as Danielle and Jo were laughing, Danielle 'nervously' said "That was f***in' fantastic..I loved it". Jo interjected "I've gotta say...its made my day". Danielle agreed, still laughing together, "That f***in' brightened my day up ...am tellin ya".

What is laughable is that both Danielle and Jo claimed not to like confrontation and that's why they were laughing from nervousness. The comments above belie any such thing.

OK, now let's add in some context to some of the allegedly racist comments.

Danielle: I think she [Shilpa] is a very beautiful woman. "I think she should f*** off home". I think she is a very elegant woman. "She can't even speak English properly, anyway".

Jo:"The thing that aggravates me with Shilpa is she fingers your food..." She's a beautiful, elegant woman "I don't like all that...that's why they're all thin because they are sick all the time..."

Sound any different now?

How Jo can worry about the hygiene implications of someone picking food off your plate to taste it while simultaneously and permanently sucking on cancer sticks is one completely bonkers piece of logic.

Furthermore, "...I don't like all that".

All what, dear?

Have these girls never shared a bag of chips, a packet of crisps or a bag of sweets?

Fish and chips -the quintessentially English finger food for sharing around!

Jo wasn't simply referring to a single incident regarding one person.

The reference to 'they' and 'all that' are the telling words here which show what it is she is really talking about.

Author, Hari Kunzru, speaking on Newsnight said that it wasn't racism on a grand scale but "petty ignorance and prejudice" -refusing to pronounce Shilpa's name properly, nasty little stuff around food and other culturally marked things are all things ethnic minorities have come across and are everywhere in society. They are on a sort of continuum which at its extreme end includes more overt racism.

I wasn't convinced by Jo's rocking; she seemed fairly lucid, if a bit tearful.

If Jade has checked into the Priory because of all the stress and Jo is a "broken woman" (Fiona Phillips, GMTV) what of that much touted 'duty of care' to housemates Endemol is fond of claiming they take seriously. The psychologists attached to the programme surely have some explaining to do too. Another casualty of the whole tragic farce may be Jo's agent who dropped dead on Sunday.

Perhaps Jade's checking into the Priory and Jo's mental breakdown are attempts to plead insanity and therefore not able to answer police questions. Meanwhile, Danielle is trying a bit of reverse psychology by getting the cops to see if she was been wronged by crafty ratings-driven editing.

There are some serious questions for programme-makers and audience alike, and for Davina, Dermot and Russell who have carved out careers hosting this stuff.

Read all about it...
The legal angle..

Diverse Thoughts

Let me pull together two completely random (diverse?) news stories into one without actually connecting them in any way other than with an old quote and a rather witty post title.

The stories are Britishness and the Gay Couples Adoption Issue.

And the quote...
"My country is the world and my religion is to do good" -Tom Paine

Not very helpful, I know. 'Doing good' is wildly interpretative especially where religion is involved.

In the Bible, in the story of Martha and Mary Jesus tells Martha to leave the cooking and the washing up. Amen to that! But how come that Bible message hasn't survived?

Both are debates of many subtleties and unsubtle clashes of rights and identities.

Read all about it....
Articles of Faith
Gay couple have child in Bible

Oh Brother!

As Shilpa Shetty might say perhaps I shouldn’t dignify it with a comment. But something strange happened last week –something with consequences far outweighing its trivial origins -a bit like the ripples caused by the proverbial pebble in a pond or rather 3 Oxo cubes in the pasta. I speak, of course, of the Big news that is Celebrity Big Brother.

Some years ago I heard lots of shrieking and shouting coming from my teenage son's bedroom. It was something he was watching on the telly. From the intonation and vernacular nature of the language I could hear that it was real people, not acting. As I went about my business up and down the stairs putting away the laundry etc the shrieking and shouting kept pressing itself into my consciousness. WTF?? I thought to myself. I could hear him laughing. Part of me didn’t want to intrude. Give a teenager some cultural space ‘n’ all that.

The shrieking and the shouting and the cacophony got louder and more pressing.

"Its big brother, you should watch it, its well funny."

From the brief snatches I had heard and seen during my inquisitorial exchanges with teenage son on the matter of what on earth he was watching on the telly, I had decided I would rather not.

Being a fair-minded person though, I wondered whether in dismissing something that a different generation finds amusing and interesting I was being snobbish and perhaps frankly an old fart. I am a firm believer that one cannot condemn something
one knows nothing about simply on account of it being different to things one had been brought up with and in so dismissing the life and times of a different generation that this wasn’t necessarily good practice. If this were the case then slavery would never have been abolished and women would still not have the vote.

In a spirit of ‘educating’ myself I have over the years intermittently tuned in to BB and CBB just to see what is so compelling to sections of the telly-watching population. To understand, not to condemn.

I have also frequently tuned out again on account of it being totally crass TV. Why watch ordinary people (or celebrities) sitting around talking about themselves and their trivial interactions with each other. Of course the show producers try to spice things up somewhat in the mix of people they throw together and the conditions they impose on them such as rationed food and beds and space and tasks and garish decor and love-shacks all designed to meddle with the mind and rig group dynamics.

Whenever there is an inevitable reaction to this manipulation and controversy ensues the viewing figures go up and so send the signal that this is the kind of thing people want to watch on the telly. Yet, do we not all gog when we pass the scene of an accident on the road -what is the state of the wreckage, someone must surely have died? Perhaps aptly such reality TV shows have sometimes been referred to as 'car crash TV'

But should we indulge this impulse, put it on the telly and call it entertainment? While we think ‘we are all civilised now’ perhaps the trajectory from barbarism to civilisation isn’t a linear one. Maybe barbarism and civilisation can co-exist within us at one and the same time –either can be appealed to at any time.

When calculating viewing figures do we know whether the extra people watched in horror and disgust or whether they would like to be entertained on a regular basis in this way. Viewing figures are just viewing figures without context.

This time, however, the rise in viewing figures does have context –it is accompanied by a record number of complaints.

The fans and some commentators have been somewhat confused as to whether the behaviour of three white housemates towards one other 'person of colour' is racism, bullying or ignorance. It seems that many people don't understand the fullness of racism. Racism is ignorance. In its more overt and grisly forms it manifests itself as bullying and worse; in its more 'innocent' form it is expressed in ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity. More thoughtful commentators have analysed well what has been going on. The best discussion I have seen was on Newsnight. Hari Kunzru, a writer, observed that one of the purposes of Big Brother is to hold a mirror up to society albeit using a ‘sadistic format’, that this was not racism on a grand scale but the kind of petty ignorance and prejudice that is everywhere in society. He also thought that it was useful to have seen it unsanitised on TV and to witness the rather healthy bit of self-disgust we’re having at the behaviour of members of our society.

Part of the debate was about whether the racist elements of the behaviour and conversations of the housemates should have been shown or would showing it legitimate it in some people’s eyes as that kind of behaviour being acceptable.

But as Kunzru pointed out what matters now is the response we have to it.

That, thankfully, has been one of overwhelming revulsion, which has ultimately seen the expulsion in accordance with the shows format of one of the perpetrators.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the other two collaborator housemates who were also equally culpable in creating an environment of petty racism in their little group discussions, at times openly expressed in their behaviour towards Shilpa. Indeed, Danielle Lloyd who has arguably been worse than Jade, having been challenged by BB about comments she had made and realising her part in it all was seen grovelling by Shilpa's bedside 'apologising' and like a rat on a sinking ship, blaming Jade for leading her astray. It will also be interesting to see if they play the clips of all those nasty little conversations to Shilpa when she emerges from the House, as part of her 'your time in the House' montage. She would likely retract her retraction that it wasn’t racism.

Some commentators on the broadcasting phenomenon that is the Big Brother franchise described it as a kind of 'social experiment'.

Jeremy Paxman, in his introductory to the brief but intelligent discussion on Newsnight asked, with the following emphasis ‘has it staged or exposed something?’ He did though with the next sentence answer his own question as he explained what had been happening: ‘participants not chosen for their sophistication exactly, acted unsophisticatedly.’

The reaction to what has been both staged and exposed last week and the resulting serious debate it has provoked is I think accidental rather than the programme-makers deliberately seeking to render a socially responsible service to society. Indeed, chief exec of Channel 4, Andy Duncan, who offered a mealy-mouthed statement on the matter, ‘wasn’t sure’ if it was racism or not.

Think back to a previous series of ordinary Big Brother, Series 5 – 2004, openly advertised as 'Big Brother Gets Evil' where two housemates were evicted but were placed in a 'bedsit' where they could see and hear everything the other housemates were saying about them and then later having seen all that were re-introduced to the house. Predictably, violence ensued and the police were called. That stunt wasn’t experimental -the programme-makers knew and were apparently warned what would happen. I fail to see what gain in human understanding was achieved by engineering a fight. That, perhaps, should have been the end of the programme.

Some ironies emerging from this week’s spectacle, if so subtle a thing as irony can be attributed to BB is that in its chasing of ratings and profit it is behaving like a celebrity itself –when certain celebrities begin to bore their audience and the media and have to resort to more extreme lengths to get noticed again –like Britney & co going out (and being pap snapped) wearing no knickers. But mostly it is that the show that gave Jade her celebrity and that celebrated the particular aspect of her called ignorance has been, deliberately so, her downfall. As famous publicist Max Clifford said that she was more exploited than exploiter.

Paul Morley, very intelligent cultural commentator, though a big fan of Big Brother hopes that this moment is a turning point in the culture of celebrity and that somehow in future we cease to celebrate people merely for their appearance and that more thoughtful and intelligent people are lauded as celebrities.

It has, however incidentally, also been a moment to collectively ‘out’ racism and vulgarity in our midst. Everyone who has ever experienced such ignorance knows how hard it is to get them to recognise it in themselves – “I’m not a racist but ….” While individually confronting a racist or a bully might be dangerous, this presented an opportunity to safely confront racism and bad behaviour.

Howard Jacobson in The Independent, has an interesting dissection of the bedfellows ignorance and racism contained within the events of the last week. He rates the ‘stupidity’ and the celebration of it that is dumbing down at the root of the behaviour displayed as the larger crime. “There is a vindictiveness to dumbing down. It aims to dethrone not only intelligence but the means by which we rate one thing above another. Dumbing down is an assault upon the very concept of value” and “Racism” he explains “is slumberingly integral to all ignorance” (‘though not all racists are stupid –all ignorants are at some level racist’). The revulsion at what happened I think went way beyond whether it was racism or 'classism' –there was widespread horror about the badness of the behaviour in general, that it had not only been allowed to happen but engineered to happen, that these people are a product of our society and that watching such dysfunction is claimed as entertainment. It was repellant in the round and all were implicated and culpable –programme-makers/Channel bosses first and in joint second place, participants and audience.

If any good is to come out of this week’s display of shabbiness (and I reiterate my belief that this will be an incidental rather than an intentional good on the part of those responsible for the programme) Jade & co will team up with Shilpa and undertake some genuine cultural learning –both race and class. Jade, when confronted with her own behaviour on the screen was mortified and disgusted. “I’m the kind of person that I don’t like myself, anyway”. Some self-awareness is a good start. I think she will see the need for change. Learning some dignity and respect, learning, using and understanding new, even long words does not mean pretending to be something you’re not. Indeed, Learning in general –that would be something to celebrate.

In another Newsnight discussion (Newsnight Review) a guest likened Big Brother eviction nights with the baying crowds as something of a sporting event. Another chipped in “gladiatorial”. Indeed, the show does have that Roman arena element to it where the slaves are thrown to fight it out to the death for the entertainment of the audience.

Eviction, however, isn’t quite so barbaric. Its only a fight to the death of someone else’s popularity/personality –but it did leave its scars on Jade “I don’t want to go through all that crap again” she sobbed in the diary room as she realised what was likely to befall her. But let her not be the fall girl. The wider media and politicians too bear responsibility for the national environment where people like Jade & co are created. Tabloid headlines about foreigners and immigrants and politicians' long history of fear-mongering set the national tone.

Re-invention need not be inauthentic, it can be done in a spirit of ‘lifelong learning’. Jade’s embryonic self-awareness shows what a waste of human potential resides in some people. Jo O’ Meara, co-conspirator with Jade & Danielle, sulked in a moment of accidental profundity “This is a horrible game”. Gladiatorial even. Are the rest of us willing to make those changes too.

(Aside: There is no excuse for the celebrities who host the satellite BB shows- Dermot, Davina and Russell, who’s mainstay careers have revolved around the BB product and who have continued to be involved with the programme despite the contrived conflict & violence. Though Russell Brand is very, very funny (if a little OTT at times))

Read all about it...
The real villains..

Mervyn King Raises Interest Rate

Analysts reacted with shock yesterday as the interest rate was raised. The rise was not expected until next month at least. However, the rise was necessary to curb inflation.

Mervyn King said "I nearly packed my darts away and went home today. You nearly didn't have a quarter per cent rise. It was that close."

Read all about it...
On packing his darts away...
"It was that close..."

Michelin Man

Now I'm not one for quoting the Daily Telegraph but couldn't resist a wee joke. The Spy asks:

"Is Gordon Ramsay having trouble doing up that top button after the indulgences of Christmas? My Spandex-clad spies tell me that the Michelin-starred chef has embarked on a gruelling fitness regime that is causing envy at his Soho gym...."

Michelin Man?

Ruth Kelly's Decision : Cutting to the Heart of the Issue

Quite deservedly the decision of cabinet minister Ruth Kelly with regard to the education of her child with special educational needs has been the subject of much comment.

Some comment has been in respect of whether 'we' should indeed be commenting on it at all and the rest has been in respect of the decision itself. Much of that has been about the fact that the school is 'private' rather than state sector and what a betrayal of 'Labour' values that is. Looking at much of that commentary, it is nice to see that class consciousness (some terms in posts and commentary have included 'posh kids', 'great unwashed', 'plebs', 'middle classes') is still alive if not quite kicking (with Dr Martens on).

As Ruth Kelly used to be cabinet minister for education, making decisions on education for the rest of society, then of course where she sends her own child is in the public interest. Having direct experience of the service you preside over is a good guide in decision-making about that service. And she does. By all accounts her other three children do attend state schools. So her commitment to state education is at least on that score not in question. Indeed, it is possible for ordinary folk to have their disabled/SEN children sent to schools in the 'independent' sector if it can be proven (professional reports and the like) that their extra educational needs arising out of their disability/learning difficulty/complex needs cannot be met in any other way. However, only the most determined, articulate and knowledgeable of the 'system' and the law are likely to get such provision.

Keener minds have noticed that the real issue in this is that of special vs mainstream. The government has promoted a policy of inclusion in the mainstream education system for disabled children and those with special educational needs. And so right has this policy been judged to be that many special schools have been closed down, often against the wishes of those who use and benefit from them. Inclusion is great where it is appropriate. But it is often found more appropriate than is actually the case because of the perceived savings in cost of not having to provide 'special' services in addition to mainstream or universal ones. This is as true in education as in social care.

What has been exposed here is the continued necessity of specialist help in a special school. So stop closing them all down!

My favourite most incisive account of the situation, although admittedly its focus seems to touch on the private parts of the decision, is over at NHS Blog Doctor - the sentiment and language is spot on.

Read all about it....
Ruth Kelly should resign
David Aaronovitch sticks up for Ruth
Thanks, Ruth Kelly
why?....
This charming vision of inclusion isn't working
Every Disabled Child Matters