Category Archives: Media

The Spectre of another bad Bond

As you may have noticed the countdown is now on. We are only a few weeks away from the big day and everyone is getting rather excited. Shops are filled with merchandise, adverts are all over the TV and people can’t stop talking about it. Christmas? No I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about possibly the most anticipated film release for a decade, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. But while plenty of enthusiasts and fanboys are flocking to cinemas on 19th December to get a first glimpse of what will no doubt be a huge spectacle, I am more interested in the most recent addition to another famous film franchise, the latest James Bond film Spectre.

I’ve always been a lover of the James Bond series. I watched them with my dad, as a little boy. I experienced the humour of Connery, the chauvinism of Moore, the vaguely ridiculous but still rather charming Lazenby, the streetwise Dalton and then the gentleman Brosnan. At university I studied film, and even wrote my dissertation on Bond, and when I left university in 2006 Bond returned from a four year hiatus with Daniel Craig and Casino Royale. It is safe to say that Bond has always fascinated me. I love to get immersed in the spectacle of the films but I also enjoy looking at how the films have evolved and how each film mirrors our contemporary society in some way, in almost every facet; the plots, the sets, the villains, the henchmen, the cars, even Bond himself. And as a purist Bond fan, seeing the reinvention of Bond in Casino Royal and then the other Daniel Craig films, was both interesting and largely disappointing.

The Daniel Craig era of James Bond films saw a shift in the approach to our favourite spy. The films felt more like a version of a Jason Bourne film than a James Bond film. The Daniel Craig bond films had to be different and draw a line in the sand. Towards the end of the Brosnan era things had gotten a little silly. The previous outing for Bond, and last for Brosnan, was the rather farcical Die Another Day film, which lost the plot a little with supercharged weapons, laughably unrealistic gadgets and a storyline that was clearly more focussed on getting spectacle into the film than grit and interest. Die Another Day, it is safe to say, probably brought the Bond franchise as close as it has ever come to ending. Certainly many people were suggesting maybe it was time for Bond to retire the Walther PPK and take a well earned beach holiday. So when Daniel Craig burst onto the scene in Casina Royale, in a paired back film that had grit, determination, panache and action abounding, it was a breath of fresh air. It was a modern interpretation with intrigue and plot twists, relying on the complex and in depth script and characters rather than gimmicks to make it a great film. But there was a problem, and one which has persisted in all the Daniel Craig films to date…it just wasn’t quite Bond.

I won’t dwell on the previous films now, I’ll leave that for my book on Bond (which I may write one day). Instead lets look to Spectre, a film that I have been looking forward to for quite some time. To frame this particularly episode in the Bond series and particularly in Craig era, Sam Mendes returns as the Director following Skyfall in 2012 – a massively disappointing Bond film in my opinion. This film features the mysterious organisation Spectre, who have popped up many times over the 53 years Bond has been appearing on our screens, as the villainous  opponents. As the focus for a storyline it is one that has been screaming to be made for sometime and finally it has been done. The film completes a story that they have been developing over the four films since Casino Royale and wraps up a number of plot strands and ties everything together in a neat bundle. Or at least that is the intention.

The major criticisms levelled at Bond since Craig took over are that it is not true to the James Bond we know and love. It has lost the quintessential nature and character of a Bond film and has been dulled down into just another action film – Jason Bond/James Bourne. For fans there are some defining things that set Bond out as different and these things seemed (in part) to be missing:

  • A dry British wit, poking fun at his adversaries and making light of the situation he is in
  • Grotesque / Unique / Freakish henchmen/women
  • A culturally significant super villain
  • Beautiful and desirable Bond girl(s)
  • Gadgets
  • Q, MoneyPenney, M, Felix Leiter
  • A villains superbase / secret lair
  • A race against time
  • A chase (often car chase)
  • Set piece confrontations and fight scenes
  • Above all else, a storyline that is contemporary (although not always entirely believable)

The argument for the new Bond is that it needed to change and modernise otherwise it would fade into nothing and become an unappealing relic of the past. But the problem is in modernising they lost the heart of Bond, and as much as I liked Casino Royale as a film it just didn’t feel like a Bond film. And nor did Quantum of Solace or Skyfall. Great films yes, great spectacles, but not great Bond films. I could spend ages focussing further on the reasons for this, or the criticisms about Bond going back to anti-feminist ways with Skyfall etc etc, but that is not for now.

So we get to Spectre. And with much trepidation I went and saw the film. My trepidation was mainly because Spectre as a concept is up there with the very best Bond plots. To make it badly would be to miss the biggest opportunity in the Bond franchise and with the relatively poor outing that was Skyfall, and hearing some criticism of Spectre generally, I was not convinced the film would be any good. But to my surprise and utter delight, what I watched was Bond back at its best. In fact I would venture so far as to say it lived up to all my expectations. I would even go so far to say that it surpasses most other Bond films. It is excellent (with a couple of caveats).

But why? Why is this film so good where arguably all of the previous Daniel Craig Bond’s have failed to hit the mark? Well without giving any spoilers – quite simply because it has reintroduced every one of the facets of Bond that we have come to know and love. The film re-establishes Bond as the witty character that pokes fun at his situation. It re-establishes the working dynamic between him and his surrounding contributors (MoneyPenney, Q and M). It puts Bond back in the environments we want to see him in; real cities and locations. More significantly though it has a storyline that is contemporary and that we can all relate to, which is being enacted by villains that are characterised in the Bond way; they are outlandish, bigger better and stronger than the norm, they are sinister and believable in the power they establish and wield and intimidating in their menace. Where the previous films have been almost comic book in their characterisation, these characters return to the principles that created henchmen like Jaws, OddJob and Rosa Klebb and super villains like Dr No, Scaramanga and Ernst Stavro Blowfeld. And the story is as complex and involved as you would expect from the best Bond films, rather than the sometimes paper-thin stories such as that of Skyfall – which frankly could have been from any Bond / Bourne / Mission Impossible film, to name but a few. But maybe it was necessary to have those rather soft films before. Without giving anything away, Spectre draws upon all of those three previous films and makes you suddenly realise what was actually going on there, which in some ways goes against the Bond principle of standalone films with standalone story lines, but is something that actually I don’t mind.

For me Spectre finally delivered on the promise we have know Daniel Craig has as a modern Bond. It stayed true to the modern elements he brings to the character; a daredevil action man, more solemn and detached than those who came before him. A somewhat lonely and unfulfilled / lost individual searching for answers for his inner demons. But what they have finally done is wrap that up with the wider James Bond surround that we expect. The film has huge and spectacular set piece action sequences, subtle and realistic gadgets, great car chases, a seemingly unstoppable and freakish henchman, a sinister super villain who has a classic villain superbase, a plot that twist and turns and keeps you riveted a beautiful Bond girl and a dashing MoneyPenney, a clever and resourceful but rather despairing Q and a dynamic and demanding, but ultimately supportive M. It even has a race against the clock with an actual timer and of course, some great interplay and intense staring between Bond and his arch enemy. In short it has everything you would expect, want and need from a Bond film.

Any down sides? Well a couple. There is one strand to the storyline which is unnecessary in my view. It reveals an existing relationship between Bond and the villain that borders on the cheesy and the film would have worked quite happily without it. It works with it as well but the consequence of the extra complexity is a film that is 30mins too long and left a slightly bitter taste in the mouth. But I can accept that for all of the positives. So in answer to all the critics, this time I think they’ve done it. This Bond is not just a great film, it is one of the great Bond films.

So where does this leave us? Sam Mendes ends his association with Bond at this point. This also presents a convenient opportunity for Daniel Craig to hand over the reins to another actor. He’s already said that the role is very physically demanding on him but he is contracted for one more film. The other consideration is that he has been Bond for 10 years. A lot has changed in that time and the one thing we do know about the man who inhabits that role is that he has to be current. He has to be a Bond for the people of that time. Is Craig’s time done or can his dynamic Bond live on for another couple of year? Will he retire the Aston and the PPK or will he continue? That is a story for another day. Only time will tell, all we know is that Bond will return…and I can’t wait!

Should sacking Clarkson mean the BBC lose their charter?

With over one million people signing a petition for Jeremy Clarkson to be reinstated by the BBC, representing two thirds of the amount of people who watch an average show, and a 25th of the entire license paying public, should the BBC lose its charter for not therefore renewing his contract? Well the answer is obviously no. The BBC should not lose their Royal Charter and publicly funded status because of sacking a man who assaulted his co-worker. But the subject raises some interesting considerations in terms of the corporation and its responsibility to the public at large.

After the incident of the alleged assault, the BBC had to take action. There is no denying that Clarkson seems to lack self control and, after so many incidents with the presenter over a prolonged period, they had to stamp on his behaviour. He left them in an untenable position, but that a million people very quickly signed a petition to reinstate him clearly shows that the public thought he shouldn’t have been sacked because of it. What that actually means is that one million people couldn’t imagine a worthwhile Top Gear without him involved. They are right to think that, the idea of a Top Gear without Clarkson, and therefore without May and Hammond as well, would clearly mean that the show will have to undergo a reinvention. But the main consideration this raises here is, when should a publicly funded organisation, with responsibilities to the public at large, listen to a public outcry and when should they feel that they can go against the public opinion and act on their own beliefs?

The BBC’s Royal Charter details under what conditions it should be allowed to be publicly funded and the debate has raged for quite sometime about whether or not it still meets the requirements handed to it. The basic premise is that the corporation should produce a range of content to meet the large majority of the interests of the general public, catering for minorities, niche audiences and the general populous. This should be delivered under the three principles of educating, informing and entertaining. It is this foundation which means they operate multiple channels, with multiple focuses and run specialist radio stations that cater for Pop, Classical, News, Alternative Music, etc. It is also the reason why regional news used to be a key and substantial part of the news delivery on the BBC. For many decades the main reason for the Royal Charter was to make sure that the limited television service available to the public, limited to only a couple of channels, provided a variety of content that everyone could enjoy (at least parts of), rather than producing content that would only ever appeal to a small proportion of the population.

Whether or not the BBC should remain publicly funded is a debate that has raged on for quite some time. Since commercial television became a power, and freeview means that hundreds of channels are available and specialist content across these channels caters for almost everyone, there have been questions asked about whether the BBC continues to fulfil a vital roll. What is clear is that the corporation is no longer required to provide varied content simply because it would otherwise not be available. In fact, the reality is that people now get the vast majority of their specific needs from other networks and specialist channels that far better meet our taste needs. With this in mind, the BBC should be more focused than ever at producing content that meets their requirements under the charter. But are they? Do they meet the needs of the general public and are they even listening to the public? Are they even asking the public for their opinion? In my opinion the answer is no.

The nature of the BBC is that in so many ways it is an outdated institution that needs to be reformed. Many would argue they have kept current but that would be in their output, but in the way the institution operates it is still very archaic. At the end of the day they need to make sure they are meeting their objectives and they need to put the public first. That means listening, and not just to the one or two people who are writing in to points of view, but to every one of the 25 million license payers.They should be required to undertake a census style research program, which is a rolling project that aims to have feedback from the majority of their license payers. This would be the only way to guarantee they are on the right track.

A good example of this is the BBC news output, which in many ways you could argue is industry leading. But as I mentioned before, one of the major benefits for people in the past has been the regional coverage. This used to be a substantial part of the news broadcasts but recently has been reduced to a five minute bulletin like segment, which barely scratches the surface of local needs. To replace it they have increased coverage on things like major sports. It is a clear example of where the public have been put behind the pandering of executives to higher profile stories. It is also an example of where they are clearly not meeting their requirements under the charter.

The BBC needs to become a more agile institution rather than an old fashioned corporation. This means listening to the people it serves and having people in positions of authority who are new thinkers rather than old hands. This means reform and a change in culture. It is imperative that they become more independent, driven by opinion and less wasteful. And that means actually understanding what people want and what they need. It needs to be more regional and more on demand.

The problem with the BBC is that is sits in a system that has allowed it to stay stagnant and pretend it is evolving when below the surface it is not. It suffers from the same thing as the NHS, the rail network and the power network, where profits drive decisions rather than customer needs. All of these institutions need to be reformed. The public need to be put at the heart of their delivery rather than relying on the opinion of those who are out of touch, or have never been in touch. If a strategy of understanding actual needs was at the heart of all of these organisations then there wouldn’t be any debates about profit-mongering in the NHS or power suppliers not passing on cuts in prices. Perhaps one of the parties vying for government at the moment should focus on that, instead of arguing with each other over things that don’t really matter. But then, if there was ever an example of an institution that doesn’t actually listen to the general public, then government is it!

50 Shades of Dismay

A couple of weeks ago I was listening to radio four and they were discussing the new Fifty Shades of Grey film. The conversation involved two film critics, one male and one female, and the presented of the discussion show. What is interesting about this film is that it seems to have split opinion almost as much as the books did, but for different reasons.

The consensus of the male critic, who had already seen the film, is that the Director had managed to ‘rescue’ a good film out of a relatively poor book and managed to make something really rather credible. However the female critic, who hadn’t seen the film, seemed more interested in proclaiming that the books, and therefore by association the film, were anti-feminist pieces of filth that were derogatory to women, portrayed an immensely stupid and naive character in Ana Steele that undermined women everywhere and that Christian Grey is the worst kind of man imaginable. Her view was very much that there is no place for that kind of sexual relationship in society.

Now I have to take issue with her views on more than one level, but as a starter why don’t we focus on another feminist comment made very publicly recently. Yesterday Patricia Arquette used her OSCAR acceptance speech as an opportunity to make a point about equal rights for women in pay in the USA. Now this is a point that I can completely get on board with. The concept that because you are a woman that you should be paid differently to a man is abhorrent. The idea that your gender can in some way dictate your ability and skill level is laughable, at best and should have gone out with slavery. It certainly has no place in a supposedly modern and forward thinking world. My issue with this ridiculous film critic suggesting that 50 Shades of Grey is derogatory to women and that it is an anti-feminist story is that she has firstly completely failed to appreciate the fundamental focus of the book, and secondly she is using the feminist movement is completely the wrong way.

So let me examine this in a bit more detail. The premise of this woman’s objection to E.L. James’s book is that the story features a man exerting power over a woman. Her view is that it suggests it is ok for a man to use violence in the context of their sexual relationship and that the male is repressing her and taking her power away from her by degrading her, simply treating her as an object and possession. Perhaps she should read the book again and actually take note of what is happening.

There is no doubt that Ana Steele is a naive woman, but stupid? No. If you strip all of the sex out of the trilogy you end up with two things; a much much much shorter story and also a compelling look at how two characters, through love, completely change through their dedication to each other.

The interesting thing about this critic’s stance on 50 Shades of Grey is that she has completely failed to see that the power in the story lies not with Christian but with Ana. Unintentionally, and at times completely intentionally, Ana manipulates Christian. She puts him under a metaphorical spell that he has, by his own admittance, never been under before. She transforms his world, through a reluctance and refusal at times to engage on his terms, from one where he is always in control to one where he must accept the control, or at least involvement, of others. And by the end of the story Christian is a very different man, whereas Ana is by and large the same woman.

So what about the sex? There is a valid argument that Christian exerts his power and influence in order to coerce Ana into taking part in acts that she wouldn’t otherwise choose to do, but she does this mostly willingly. She certainly lets him know when she is not happy about it or when something has gone too far and the consequences are emotionally harder on him than on her. In fact in many parts of the story Ana is the one yielding the power, teasing Christian or suggesting that she would like to do things. She becomes the leader as her confidence grows and Christian has to sing to her tune.

The idea that the more risque end of the sexual spectrum is anti-feminist is simply unfounded. It is not at all unhealthy for a couple to engage in these sorts of acts if they wish to and to suggest that this should not exist in society displays a lack of understanding. Different people are turned on by different things and, as long as those are legal, there is nothing wrong with that. The reaction of thousands of women to the books shows the repressed attraction many people harbour for playing with their partners in this way. And the DIY stores did well out of it as well.

So what is my point? Well mainly this. Feminism has an important role in a society where women still do not receive the same professional respect and benefits as men to. It serves a valid purpose, one which Patricia Arquette quite rightly used her fame to make comment on yesterday. The problem though is when someone cheapens it by taking half-truths, misunderstandings and a completely lazy reading of a story to then try and suggest that a story is anti-feminist, when it clearly is the opposite. As a writer I find it amazing that someone can criticise a work so fiercely without understanding it, as a film lover I find it amazing that a critic could be so against the film without even having seen it, and as someone who believes in fairness I find it annoying that feminist movements that are doing a huge amount of good constantly get tarred with the same brush as this foolish woman!

At the end of the day this is a story that reveals a compelling lifestyle, one which clearly affects a large group of us in many ways. Like all good stories it gets us talking, we feel involved and we feel compelled to watch, read and discuss. We don’t need anyone telling us how we need to feel about it though, we can judge that for ourselves.

I’m a celebrity, let’s exploit a penguin!

It’s Christmas season again. You can tell this not by the fact that advent has begun, which it hasn’t yet, but because every major retailer in the country has released their Christmas advert. The reality TV shows are also everywhere, counting down to a Christmas finale of no doubt epic proportions, where an idiotic Irishman will declare that someone who is tone deaf is the greatest singer since Arion, two little Geordie’s will crown a non-celebrity king or queen of the five star jungle and some moody blokes in black ties will say that a dance that none of us have heard of was sequin-tastic.

And whilst I am trying to control my undoubted excitement and hoping that Santa Claus doesn’t fall out of his sleigh, I will change the channel in the hope of finding something more educational for my daughters to watch. My hope will be to find something that is more stimulating than the mind-numbing anti-entertainment that now makes up weekend prime time programming. Of course my daughters won’t care, they will only have eyes for the iPads, browsing for the toys we haven’t bought them for Christmas and then not talking to us for a week because we clearly don’t love them.

Every year is the same. Whilst the rational people use advent as the earliest opportunity to even start thinking about Christmas, the rest of the world starts to get ready just after Halloween. This is the reason I can now read my book at night by the light of my neighbour’s Christmas lights, which could also double as the approach lights for Heathrow. I can hear the whirring of the electrical meter from down the street. But on the plus side Southern Electric shares are going up in price by the hour. We’ve got to get out of this recession somehow. I’m fairly sure though that he has paid for the lights with a Wonga loan!

Don’t get me wrong, I really like Christmas, I like to ‘do’ Christmas and have a merry old time. I like my children to think Christmas is magical and all that, because those memories will stay with them forever. But what I don’t like is that it seems to last for three months now, it is shoved down our throats from all angles and that underneath all this false merriment everyone is basically miserable and moans about everything.

Take TV adverts. John Lewis has for years now been producing high end adverts especially for Christmas. It has become a spectacle that people wait for with baited breath. And on the day the advert appears social media goes mad for it. Last year’s was a touching animation about a bear, accompanied by a mediocre Lily Allen cover of a well loved Keane song. The year before was an equally heart wrenching tale of a snow man and snow woman. The nation universally shed a tear for a wonderful piece of storytelling. This year’s is no different. Monty the Penguin is a visual masterpiece that cost them £1 million to produce and tells the lovely story of a boy’s lonely Penguin in desperate need of more penguin companionship.

But this year John Lewis doesn’t have the monopoly, almost every major brand has cottoned on to the ‘Christmas Epic Advert’. They want a piece of the action and so the marketing boffins have been scratching their heads since Easter to work out what story they can tell that’ll get us all crying. No doubt they’ve been out experimenting, taking candy from babies and poking dogs with sticks to see what is most touching. Well maybe not, but it would seem that Sainsburys probably should have done that, as they wouldn’t have got as much backlash as their Christmas advert seems to have stirred up.

This year, on the 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War, they have produced an advert that dramatizes the legendary Christmas Truce that took place in 1914. Their treatment is a sensitive, understated and yet very thought provoking tale of two soldiers, one German and one British, who venture out into no mans land and meet in the middle to offer seasons greetings. A football match ensues and there is much merriment, until the idyllic scene is shattered by distant gun fire. The advert ends with the German having a blue wrapped chocolate bar from the Brit, and the Brit a biscuit from the German. But barely had the advert finished than social media was going mad with complaints of outrage. How dare Sainsburys exploit a conflict where millions died in order to make profit? OFCOM say they have received hundreds of complaints about the advert.

So let’s put this into context for a moment. Sainsburys has worked with the Royal British Legion for over 20 years, and made this advert in conjunction with them. Bearing in mind the significance of the anniversary on which this has been released, it is unlikely this wasn’t discussed in some detail on more than one occasion over the last year or so. During that period of planning, which would have been quite in depth for a production of this level, one presumes that some of the members of that organisation, who are uniquely qualified to have a view on such things, might have mentioned if they thought this advert was in bad taste. Presumably no one did because Sainsburys went ahead with it and have also released additional footage about the making of the film as well.

And yet they are apparently exploiting the memory of the war. And yet funnily enough I don’t remember seeing British soldiers strolling across no mans land with hands full of supermarket products. Or the hun coming in the other direction armed to the teeth with toiletries and wearing orange overalls. One assumes the same people who are throwing these accusations around on social media were quite happily chuckling away when they were watching Blackadder, or taking their photos of the poppy display at the Tower of London, which has no doubt enjoyed increased revenues as a result. Exploitation? No. The only product Sainsburys actually displays in its advert is a retro styled chocolate bar in a blue wrapper and, whilst plastering the advert with “Live Well for Less”, their motto, would have been a gigantic an error of judgement, all I remember is simple logo on black of equal weighting to that of the Royal British Legion. Those who are mortally offended that they are peddling their retro chocolate bar in this manner may like to know that the proceeds of the sales of those particular bars are going to the Royal British Legion as well and not into the pockets of Sainsburys executives. No wonder everyone is so annoyed, they really do have a nerve don’t they? How dare they donate money to a veterans charity at Christmas!

The problem is that at Christmas these sorts of stories come out because this is the time of year when we start to take stock of what we have. Lets get one thing straight and do away with the naivety here, all adverts are exploitative. They are designed specifically to make you do something that you would otherwise probably not consider doing, that is the point. This is the reason that in Sweden advertisers are banned from showing adverts during childrens programming. So what is worse, emotionally manipulating someone year on year and dressing it up as a sweet little story about penguins, or showing a well put together and rather touching dedication to those brave men and women 100 years ago, whilst raising money for that charity? If that is exploitation then exploit away because those charities need all the help they can get.

And for those who feel the need to sling accusations at the morally corrupt big wigs at these companies, I ask you to do this. Drag yourself off the crumb encrusted sofa for more than a few seconds, block out the sounds of the morally extinct, obese wastes of oxygen on I’m An X Factor Get Me Dancing and look a little deeper at what is going on. The reason you consider this exploitative is because you feel the need to defend something that you only have a passing attachment to, so that you can take a moral high ground. Your complaint is that a company has produced something for profit, using imagery of something abhorrent. But what they actually did was show a moment of compassion that highlights an extremely important and under discussed moral issue of the war. That both sides were human. They did this as a dedication to those who fought, on the 100th anniversary of a war that we all pledge we will never forget. And they did it to sell the only product they actually feature, for which the proceeds go to help a military charity. Of course they are trying to make profits but so are all businesses. I’m sure if this had been produced as a short drama you’d all love it, but that production company didn’t do it for free either! Or of course you could just sit back on the sofa and smile at the little boy playing with the toy penguins and forget all that morally important stuff. Now where are my ten million watt Christmas lights, I want to be seen from space!

It’s the end of the world, or is it?

If you believe the media we are all going to die. Sorry to be morbid about it, but basically that’s it for us. If Ebola doesn’t get you then the quadruple dip recession, that we are apparently teetering on the edge of, will mean we won’t be able to afford as much as a piece of bread. And if you are lucky enough to be spared these fates, struggling around in haz-mat suits and desperately trying to avoid anyone else sneezing on you, then there is always the impending global warming disaster and power shortages to look forward to.

Not much of a choice really; catch an aggressive virus, starve to death in abject poverty or freeze to death in the dark. Lets be honest, it is a bit like the Daily Mail made a disaster movie. But the problem is that this bleak outlook is simply not accurate. Only this week scientists have started saying that they may have drastically overestimated the onset of global warming and that the effects are likely to be less severe than first thought. And whilst this week the recession is back on, last week everyone was in recovery. So what on earth is going on?

What it basically boils down to is that the news corporations have nothing better to do with their time than lead us all up and down the garden path. This wouldn’t normally be a problem, you can take it or leave it. But when it does become a problem is when they start reporting unhelpful things about the spread of a virus like Ebola. At the end of the day we aren’t really impacted if a footballer did or didn’t do something, or even if the latest Yew Tree suspect is guilty. They are both relevant stories but they don’t individually affect us. However, reporting that the Ebola virus can be spread through the air is not just inaccurate, it is irresponsible. It causes panic in a lot of people who get their only source of information on the subject from the media.

And this is the problem with the media, in so many ways. They have the remit to pronounce whatever they like and then repent later. This can be the cause of mass panic at the stroke of a pen (or printing press). Years ago they reported that there was going to be a fuel shortage. So everybody rushed out and filled their cars, jerry cans, even wheely bins with as much fuel as they could, and low and behold there was a shortage. Irresponsible reporting led to the shortage in a situation that otherwise would have been quite manageable.

And this is also the problem with the ‘right to be forgotten’ law. It gives people the remit to do whatever they like, without fear that it will haunt them forever. They can just have the search result removed. No harm, no foul. But there is harm here. The news corporations should be held more accountable to report information accurately. If they don’t have the detail then they shouldn’t report it. Of course, this won’t happen. The system is balanced in their favour. So for now we will just have to be content to ignore the news and hope that we don’t die of one of the many things we are apparently at risk from:

200 different forms of deadly cancer, terrorist attacks, deadly viruses, rampaging illegal breeds of dogs, swallowing lithium batteries, snow storms, avalanches, out of control buses crashing into your home, mad men, dementia, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, sink holes, drug overdoses, asteroid collision, global warming…

…but don’t worry, you’ll be glad to know that when you do die, which is apparently any minute now, your body will be handled with care!