...
I commented on someone else's blog, but thought I'd repeat my comments here, because I love the album and the group *just* *that* *much*...
http://whymissjones.blogspot.com/2009/12/you-make-me-feel-alive-alive-alive.html
... and now I'm off to listen to it again and again and again...
FYI - I very highly recommend Why Miss Jones's blog, always good reading and well-written.
...
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
* follow-up: wtf, me...?
...
Well, now...
What was that all about, then...?
Why on earth did I so totally go off on one about this particular topic...?
Why this? Why now?
I huff and puff and sigh and shake my head and discuss with friends and family and collegues about how terrible/ ridiculous/ etc things are.
I sometimes sign petitions (when someone else organises them and all I really have to do is enter a few details and click a few buttons and can be bothered or organised to do even that).
I occasionally complain about things that impact on me directly.
Sad, and lazy, but true.
So what was it that so got right up my humph that I wrote a full-blooded complaint and then followed it up with a ranty wee blog about how that complaint was treated?
Was it the 'raised in a politically active Socialist 70s and 80s Scottish working class family' part of me resurfacing?
(wonder if my wee brother remembers being on demos and marches in his pram, chanting "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Out, Out, Out!")
Was it that long-forgotten part of me that was a member of CND and used to strike and protest against cuts while at university?
("Sit down, join the fight, education is a right!")
Pretty sure that 'no'.
If so, wouldn't it have come out before now?
(pun slightly intended, given what I complained about).
I was never a Boyzone fan or a fan of the man himself, so it's not like I felt particularly protective or precious about the poor soul.
So what was it that lit the blue touchpaper?
Was it that everyone else seemed to be complaining and I got swept along?
Was I part of the 'orchestrated campaign' she claimed had risen up on "teh interwebs"?
No.
I wouldn't have taken hours out of my own time to write the complaint and then blog about it if that was the case - again, sad, and lazy, but true.
Was it the standard template auto-response brush-off from the PCC?
Well, that didn't help... because I have thought and thought and thought about this, and the only thing I can think of is that I got fed up.
Plain and simple, I got fed up.
Fed up with seeing poorly written copy, lies, innuendo, and downright nastiness appear as acceptable pieces of 'journalism' that get publicity (and paid for).
Once something is out there, you can't take it back - not any more.
You can apologise, you can retract, you can correct, you can boycott and complain, you can punish with fines or sackings - but you can't make it un-happen.
In this day and age, copies will always exist, someone will always remember... and isn't that how rumours and urban legends start?
Isn't that how nonsense like 'vaccines are dangerous' and 'Diana was murdered' and 'Obama is a Kenyan Muslim' keeps going?
I know that it was her opinion, and I will defend to the end of time her right to have that opinion.
But she gets paid for writing her opinion, and that opinion is then made easily available and accessible in the public domain.
So, for her to claim that her article and intention was 'misunderstood'...?
* breathes and counts to 10 slowly *
I am so fed up of hearing "ah, but, see... what I meant was..." - especially when you are supposed to be a professional writer to trade.
If you have something to say, say it - that's what you are apparently paid for.
If you are then misunderstood by so many people (over 25,000 complaints to the PCC, a Facebook group, Tweets, other articles and comments condemning what you write, etc)...
... well...
... I would think that you might want to maybe rethink your career choice or may go on a refresher course or brush up your skills a little...?
Because that many people misunderstanding you - either we are all thick or...
... you and your editor knew exactly what you you were doing when you published that article on that day, and have sat back and enjoyed the publicity since then, knowing that it'll all blow over and fade and be forgotten about until the next big story or controversy (ooh look, a kid in a flyaway balloon only not but with mad parents and the BNP on the BBC...!)
And yes, I am aware that I'm not helping by going on about it. So I'll stop.
:-\
.
Well, now...
What was that all about, then...?
Why on earth did I so totally go off on one about this particular topic...?
Why this? Why now?
I huff and puff and sigh and shake my head and discuss with friends and family and collegues about how terrible/ ridiculous/ etc things are.
I sometimes sign petitions (when someone else organises them and all I really have to do is enter a few details and click a few buttons and can be bothered or organised to do even that).
I occasionally complain about things that impact on me directly.
Sad, and lazy, but true.
So what was it that so got right up my humph that I wrote a full-blooded complaint and then followed it up with a ranty wee blog about how that complaint was treated?
Was it the 'raised in a politically active Socialist 70s and 80s Scottish working class family' part of me resurfacing?
(wonder if my wee brother remembers being on demos and marches in his pram, chanting "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Out, Out, Out!")
Was it that long-forgotten part of me that was a member of CND and used to strike and protest against cuts while at university?
("Sit down, join the fight, education is a right!")
Pretty sure that 'no'.
If so, wouldn't it have come out before now?
(pun slightly intended, given what I complained about).
I was never a Boyzone fan or a fan of the man himself, so it's not like I felt particularly protective or precious about the poor soul.
So what was it that lit the blue touchpaper?
Was it that everyone else seemed to be complaining and I got swept along?
Was I part of the 'orchestrated campaign' she claimed had risen up on "teh interwebs"?
No.
I wouldn't have taken hours out of my own time to write the complaint and then blog about it if that was the case - again, sad, and lazy, but true.
Was it the standard template auto-response brush-off from the PCC?
Well, that didn't help... because I have thought and thought and thought about this, and the only thing I can think of is that I got fed up.
Plain and simple, I got fed up.
Fed up with seeing poorly written copy, lies, innuendo, and downright nastiness appear as acceptable pieces of 'journalism' that get publicity (and paid for).
Once something is out there, you can't take it back - not any more.
You can apologise, you can retract, you can correct, you can boycott and complain, you can punish with fines or sackings - but you can't make it un-happen.
In this day and age, copies will always exist, someone will always remember... and isn't that how rumours and urban legends start?
Isn't that how nonsense like 'vaccines are dangerous' and 'Diana was murdered' and 'Obama is a Kenyan Muslim' keeps going?
I know that it was her opinion, and I will defend to the end of time her right to have that opinion.
But she gets paid for writing her opinion, and that opinion is then made easily available and accessible in the public domain.
So, for her to claim that her article and intention was 'misunderstood'...?
* breathes and counts to 10 slowly *
I am so fed up of hearing "ah, but, see... what I meant was..." - especially when you are supposed to be a professional writer to trade.
If you have something to say, say it - that's what you are apparently paid for.
If you are then misunderstood by so many people (over 25,000 complaints to the PCC, a Facebook group, Tweets, other articles and comments condemning what you write, etc)...
... well...
... I would think that you might want to maybe rethink your career choice or may go on a refresher course or brush up your skills a little...?
Because that many people misunderstanding you - either we are all thick or...
... you and your editor knew exactly what you you were doing when you published that article on that day, and have sat back and enjoyed the publicity since then, knowing that it'll all blow over and fade and be forgotten about until the next big story or controversy (ooh look, a kid in a flyaway balloon only not but with mad parents and the BNP on the BBC...!)
And yes, I am aware that I'm not helping by going on about it. So I'll stop.
:-\
.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
* Stiff Upper Lip (wha-hey) and DON'T (bother to) Complain
...
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
Press Complaints Commission
OK, so this morning I weighed on the whole Jan Moir thing...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir
(Charlie Brooker is a genius...)
I read all the articles, responses, tweets, etc.
I even tweeted and Facebook'd about it myself ("You wilfully wrote snide erroneous bile & it's our fault for "misunderstanding" you? Yeah, right, Jan Moir.http://tinyurl.com/yfrm9jb")
(It was my 400th tweet, and I'd like to think it was worthwhile.)
I decided to act on a suggestion from Mr Brooker's article.
I spent an hour and a half researching and writing a complaint to the PCC explaining and demonstrating how I believed Ms Moir's article breached sections 1, 5, and 12 of their Code of Practice:
Section 1: Inaccurate and Misleading
Section 5: Intrusive on the Family's Grief
Section 12: Homophobic
In less than 10 minutes of submitting my complaint on their standard form, I received a poorly written standard template automated reply from the PCC:
Dear (my full real name)
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
Press Complaints Commission
That's exactly how it appeared, apart from actually containing my real full name in the salutation (how formal).
Punctuation, spacing, and content are all unchanged (including the use of first person 'I' throughout the letter then signing it as a faceless organisation rather than a named person...)
So there you go - that's why there's a direct specific link on the page for complaining about this very article and its author...
IT'S SO THAT THEY CAN AUTO-SEND A STANDARD TEMPLATE RESPONSE TELLING YOU TO PISS OFF.
Now, I've worked in contact and service centres for about 15 years, so I know that standard template auto-responses are efficient, consistent, and cheap (sorry, cost-effective).
However - and call me old-fashioned on this - sometimes any cold and factual standard template response, let alone a poorly written one, is just not appropriate.
Because really, what their auto-response is saying is this:
We didn't actually bother reading your complaint .
Oh, and by the way - you don't actually really have the right to be offended or to complain about articles like this when they're not about one of your family.
If you do still want to complain, you'd better have a darn good reason and be prepared to explain yourself...
So I'm supposed to just accept that poorly thought-out, poorly written, inaccurate and just sheer nasty shite like this is 'good copy' and a-ok to publish as business as usual - unless it's about one of my family?
I'm supposed to accept that what gets published in (sadly) widely circulated 'news'papers is apparently nothing to do with me - unless it's about one of my family?
I'm supposed to accept that my thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sensibilities, and opinions on the matter don't count - unless it's about one of my family?
So what was the problem with the whole Andrew Sachs phone call thing, then? Was everyone who complained one of his family?
Don't get me wrong - I loathe prank phone calls, especially when they are paraded and broadcast as "comedy".
I just can't really see what the difference is - in fact, I would even suggest that this article is worse because it is deliberately misleading, inaccurate, intrusive on grief, and homophobic.
And what about the stooshie about the Dunblane survivors article? Was everyone who complained related to them?
I completely understand the intention of their ruling - unless the family wants the PCC to get involved, any investigation could itself be intrusive.
Very honourable, very compassionate.
I get the bit about "if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this"
I'll be responding to their email redirecting them to my original complaint in which I have already clearly demonstrated how the article is misleading, inaccurate, and homophobic, none of which relates directly to the Gately family (although implying that they lied about 'drug use' immediately before death and 'insisting' that it was due to natural causes is really offensive in and of itself)
But really, it seems to me that if you want to get away with posting nasty, inaccurate, bigotted nonsense with no more punishment than having to issue a follow-up statement that says "It's not me, it's you, you all deliberately misunderstood me and twisted my words and all ganged up on me, waaah"...
... then just make sure that you include and name a person involved in it (allegedly or otherwise) and just sit back and hide behind Section 5, since any investigation of complaints without family involvement is apparently immediately dismissed as intrusive.
>:-/
.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Immediate thoughts...
Post mortem results: non-contributory factors: sun, moon. Possible contributory factor: good times. Likely cause of death: boogie.
If you'd bet on him not going through with the concerts, does this count and do you get a pay-out?
Who would have put money on him being outlived by Amy Winehouse, Pete Doherty, what's left of the Rolling Stones, or the rest of the Summer Wine... or even Liz Taylor...?
Poor old Farrah Fawcett and family... can't get a look-in...
But seriously though folks, maybe now those kids will have a chance at a slightly more normal life...
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
* I'm listening... or at least, I will be as soon as I can...!
...
Yay...!
New Rage Machine...!
http://spikenesmith.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post.html
Double Yay...!
Double act...!
Oooh, I am SO looking forward to it... well, to catching up with it once I get back from working abroad for 2 weeks...!
Yay...!
New Rage Machine...!
http://spikenesmith.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post.html
Double Yay...!
Double act...!
Oooh, I am SO looking forward to it... well, to catching up with it once I get back from working abroad for 2 weeks...!
Sunday, 28 September 2008
* ahoy-hop
...
Found this through a link from a webpage and couldn't resist a look...
http://cdbaby.com/cd/captaindan2
... pirate hip-hop...!
And it's their second album...!
Love the idea, just not overly sure about spending money on something that I'd probably only use every Sept 19th... I'm a part-time, fairweather kinda pirate, ye see...
:-p
Found this through a link from a webpage and couldn't resist a look...
http://cdbaby.com/cd/captaindan2
... pirate hip-hop...!
And it's their second album...!
Love the idea, just not overly sure about spending money on something that I'd probably only use every Sept 19th... I'm a part-time, fairweather kinda pirate, ye see...
:-p
Saturday, 20 September 2008
* Here's a conspiracy theory for you...
...
And I've only just come up with this one and haven't really thought it through or researched it, so some of the details might be a bit inaccurate, impossible, or sketchy...
... and it's kind of along the same lines as Spike Nesmith's youtube post 'The Spike Nesmith Rage Machine: "Predictions"'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsrLqbB3Mtk
... but here goes, anyway...
This article and its posts are about some of the bizarre stuff going on with regards to the state of John McCain's mental health:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/the-big-whisper-whats-up_n_127435.html
So, anyway, so...
... what if, last minute into the campaign, McCain dies or withdraws through ill-health, taking both him and Palin off the ticket, and the Republicans put up a completely new dynamic duo for the presidential race...?
That way, the Republicans have had the benefit of months and months of Obama and Biden and Demmy-krat bashing (and can blame the more questionable aspects of their campaigning on people who aren't involved anymore)...
... but there's no time left to do even remotely the same to the new Republican candidates...
.. leaving the choices as:
* 2 people who've had the media focused on them for months and so loads is known (true or otherwise) about pretty much every intricate little detail of their lives and families and associates and business
... or...
* 2 pretty much unknown quantities who haven't had mud slung at them or had their skeletons brought out of the closet in public or had every aspect of their lives and families and associates and business dug up and pored over and speculated over and lied about...
If you're the kind of voter who is easily swayed and goes for people over policies, who would you vote for...?
?:-/
And I've only just come up with this one and haven't really thought it through or researched it, so some of the details might be a bit inaccurate, impossible, or sketchy...
... and it's kind of along the same lines as Spike Nesmith's youtube post 'The Spike Nesmith Rage Machine: "Predictions"'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsrLqbB3Mtk
... but here goes, anyway...
This article and its posts are about some of the bizarre stuff going on with regards to the state of John McCain's mental health:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/the-big-whisper-whats-up_n_127435.html
So, anyway, so...
... what if, last minute into the campaign, McCain dies or withdraws through ill-health, taking both him and Palin off the ticket, and the Republicans put up a completely new dynamic duo for the presidential race...?
That way, the Republicans have had the benefit of months and months of Obama and Biden and Demmy-krat bashing (and can blame the more questionable aspects of their campaigning on people who aren't involved anymore)...
... but there's no time left to do even remotely the same to the new Republican candidates...
.. leaving the choices as:
* 2 people who've had the media focused on them for months and so loads is known (true or otherwise) about pretty much every intricate little detail of their lives and families and associates and business
... or...
* 2 pretty much unknown quantities who haven't had mud slung at them or had their skeletons brought out of the closet in public or had every aspect of their lives and families and associates and business dug up and pored over and speculated over and lied about...
If you're the kind of voter who is easily swayed and goes for people over policies, who would you vote for...?
?:-/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)