A Media Person's Musings

Did He Win Because Of The Colour Of His Skin?

Believe you me I don't think so. Indeed I absolutely believe that America was ready to vote for the Democratic ticket long before the holder of that ticket was decided. However the thing that is bothering me is the reporting subsequent to the US Election. All of it seems to revolve around the historical significance of the US's first ever black president. Soundbites are being gathered from (largely) black people and the ones that are being broadcast are very race-led - "we showed you", "we won out in the end".

Why does this worry me? Well I would like to think that Obama won because of his policies and his undoubted leadership skills. This most liberal, charismatic senator promises to put ‘Peace’ at the top of the agenda and get some sanity into the financial markets. He is truly a breath of fresh air - not because he is black. I wish the media could give a balanced conclusion in its reporting. Up until now I had been pretty impressed as to the standard and quality of reporting but as usual the UK media has slipped into pigeonholing stories. Obama won because he was black. Period. Old black people, young black people (who previously didn't vote) have flocked to the polls to get their man in.

It simply isn't true. I think if Obama had been white or indeed ugly he would still have won. The American public was simply sick of the Republican Government and its manifesto and when Obama came on the scene a promise of a better day with a better man at the helm made him utterly electable. What Obama has achieved is awesome. The World is a happier place for his election - but it is about him, his talent and his policies - not the colour of his skin. Let's hope his car doesn't get pulled on his way to his inauguration in DC in January!

Is This The Start Of The End Of The World?

Today a team of scientists in the CERN laboratory, Switzerland began the biggest experiment of our time.  After 14 years of preparation and over $10billion in investment the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the “Big Bang machine” as it is now known, was finally put to the test as  the largest civillian experiment of all time.

The idea is to recreate the Big Bang, the time when the Universe began. The LHC is meant to accelerate two streams of protons to within 99.9999991 per cent of the speed of light. At  points, these beams will collide and the sub-atomic debris that results will theoretically hold clues to the nature of the Universe.

This is just the start of the experiment and the LHC will take nearly a year just to run at full power. Then the beams will be able to circulate properly and scientists will be able to look for the so-called “God particle” – the much referred-to but yet to be detected Higgs boson.

The 'Chicken Littles' who have been claiming that this experiment could lead to the end of the world (through the creation of a black hole) have been widely derided by the scientific community. The CERN team, housed 300 feet underground on the French-Swiss border claim it is 'safe' but that didnt stop another group of scientists going to the European Court of Human Rights to attempt to stop them.

Then if you look at it from the religious angle God created the Universe. Should we be meddling with it at all? Will we reap the consequences by being sucked into infinity when this experiment goes wrong? Just like stem cell research and genetic engineering do we know what we are creating?

I have always taken the middle ground between science and religion. I think both can be equally good and equally destructive. They are strange bedfellows with a lot in common. Whatever happens it is an 'experiment' - just that. Even though the scientists say there is a 40million to 1 chance of it going wrong and the World ending, there is still a chance. Interestingly the year when all their experiments are planned to come to fruition is 2012 the year the ancient Mayan Empire predicted Armageddon.

Do I think they are right? I really don't know but the words of Jesus on the Cross come to mind: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do". Because they don't know - do they?

A Thai Pickle

The Guardian  today reported that yet another Thai Premier has been ousted by the Thai Courts for not acting within the law. Hot on the heels of the military coup that ousted the previous Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the current Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has been ordered to step down for breaching a rule in the constitution about holding business interests outside his office. A rule that was written after Thaksin Shinawatra was deposed amid corruption allegations.

Interestingly the way he was breaching this rule was by hosting his own cooking show - a sort of Thai version of Gordon Ramsay's shows called "Tasting, Grumbling" where Samak demonstrates how to cook delights such as pork leg cooked in Coca Cola as well as visiting restaurants and markets. The final part of the show features his rants about whatever happens to be on his mind that week. He has been hosting the show for eight years - long before he was elevated to his current role.

In recent weeks anti-government protesters have been demanding his resignation on the grounds he is corrupt, they occupied his compound and this resulted in the declaration of a state emergency. As he is such a "lightening rod" the judges have resolved that enforcing this clause is the most expedient way of getting rid of him.

It made me think how different things would be if the same happened here. If we had a Prime Minister holding a regular cooking show it would probably INCREASE their popularity. Reality TV is increasingly filling up our screens and celebrities are seen as role models and thought leaders. Gordon Brown's popularity is dwindling on a daily basis as our economy continues to melt down, fuel prices rocket, inflation increases and house prices tumble. Brown's ill-conceived response is to take the Cabinet away on a 'jolly' for their regular meeting this month.

Gordon, I suggest you get out your pinny, give Jamie, Gordon or Ainsley a call and team up with a clever production company to come up with a winning format!

Beyond the Palin

While the media is applauding Sarah Palin for her 'electrifying' speech at the Republican National Convention I am surprised that none of them are starting to get bored of (or see right through) this 'small-town, hockey mom' rubbish she keeps spouting. When she accepted her nomination she spent most of her speech naming each one of her children and talking about her schoolteacher parents. We heard nothing about her policies and there was no positioning of her as a serious political brain.

I was looking forward to hearing some more substance from her at the RNC but she repeated the same drivel but this time peppered with the odd jibe at Obama and a few jokes.

The thing that riles me the most is that this woman is clearly a shrewd operator (she wouldn't have enjoyed such a meteoric rise if she wasn't) but she plays it down with all this apple pie BS. And if that wasn't bad enough, after using her family so blatantly as her USP she gets indignant when the press scrutinises her daughters choice of redneck partner and teen pregnancy.

The way Palin is positioning herself you would think that when she encounters a few problems with the Iraqis or the Ruskies that she will sit them on the naughty step before blowing them up.

Picking Palin

So John McCain has picked Sarah Palin as his running mate - the first woman ever to to serve on a Republican presidential ticket. I had never heard of the glamorous Alaskan Governor, indeed, I thought it was going to be Mitt Romney who McCain would choose to partner with.

When I first heard of her appointment I was pleasantly surprised. I was pleased that a woman had finally got into the running for a senior position in the White House. Maybe just maybe she could soften the Republican party's warmongering, prejudiced, parochial image that has been etched into our minds by Bush's behaviour over the last 2 Presidential terms. It seemed at first glance a smart move on McCain's part, bringing in the women's vote and adding a little youth and glamour to his campaign.

Look a little further under the surface and you see a bigoted, hard-talking, ruthless politician: She is Pro-Life and Pro-Gun (ironic huh?), anti-Gay marriage and fiercely Pro the death penalty (even more ironic huh?). Don't be fooled by the ex-beauty queen, sports star, mother-of-five image - she is as tough as nails and every bit as true to the Republican image we have come to know and loathe.

Aussie Rules!

Today a colleague forwarded a chain mail to me that caused some debate in the office. It wasn't your run-of-the mill chain mail; no 'pass this on for good luck' etc. No this little missive started as follows:

"Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. 'If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you', he said on National Television...."

Howard was quoted as saying 'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!'

Quite ironic from a nation that is born out of immigration you might think! While some may agree with some of these sentiments and the Australians have right to freedom of speech the worrying thing was how this was all communicated: The mail ended "Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths! If you agree please SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW"

This almost seems inciteful of more action and leaves quite a scary undertone. At best it is devisive. This leaves me to question where do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech. In this instance I think the line has been crossed.

Hard Luck Harry

So today we hear that Prince Harry is not going to be deployed to Iraq. The MOD had previously said that the Sandhurst graduate would be going into active service as an armed reconnaissance officer. Now in a dramatic U-turn they say that the Prince is subject to a number of threats that would also affect those around him.

This is a controversial decision but this was bound to happen and it makes me question why Harry (or now Prince William should be in the army anyway if there is no chance of them seeing active service. This  decision limits them to desk jobs. In recent history all the Royals have some sort of affiliation with our armed forces - Prince Philip saw active service in WW2 and Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot in the Navy in the Falklands conflict.

Surely Prince Andrew  (also the second son - but not the only spare to the heir) was as much of a target if not more so on a huge battleship that could be easily identified. I would put it that Harry would be more difficult to target on the ground in combats. I would have thought that all the tactical manoeuvres would be done with an element of secrecy and it would be difficult to track one soldier among thousands. But then I know nothing about the army and maybe I assume too much.

Or maybe, as my cynical streak kicks in, the real reason for this decision is that the next in line to the throne after Charles, William and Harry  is in fact Prince Andrew and then his two daughters by (the outcast) Fergie - maybe, just maybe they didn't want to risk it!

In any case I have a lot of sympathy for the father of one of the boys killed in the conflict who pointed out that with this decision the MOD is saying that Harry's life is worth more than his son's.