A Discursive on Death By Television

Is the death of a man on television a significant milestone for the 21st Century?

A man took his dying breaths on the BBC this week, which could be considered a revolutionary step forward for media development, although a much more macabre one than Big Brother.

The "viddy screen" is a huge social and cultural element of our lives, whether you watch while on Twitter or are a regular soap digestor, embracing the best of terrestrial television.

Regular readers will be aware of my dislike for the hyperreal portrayal of events in the media, a sensationalist and dumbing down of social norms which has become more and more invasive and destructive in it's pursuit for instant gratification.

The role of TV takes many forms in our culture, from background noise to all encompassing existence, but the overall understanding of the role of the television is nicely put in this article;

As "modern free time" tends to lend itself to citizen activism and the size of the overall population increases, it is necessary to keep people occupied, and TV is ideal for this purpose

But significantly since the beginning of the 21st Century, there has been a development towards not just consuming a television show, but to vicariously experience a television show.

The showing of a man's death, admittedly in an educational context, contradicts and yet emboldens the philosophical concept that in order to "be" you must "do". Without dissolving into a discursive on existentialism, it is necessary to observe how media, whether television, social media or press, has shaped the current status of human existence, purpose and definition.

Death by television is a further determination of a surrogate experience where culture has evolved to such a degree as to negate the very physicality of the human existence.

When all communication and experience can be simplified into electronic communication, we are conditioned into the human body, and indeed life, as being a circumstantial part of existence rather than a fundamental part.

With computer games that allow activity to be part of the great technology revolution, we are potentially moving swiftly towards an actualisation of "social television", whereby people will interact solely by screen and can be observed and observe through these means. The stark reality of a "telescreen" of Orwell potential is drawing closer.

And as we vicariously die, by screen, we are permitting this change.

In the months to come, we will see Channel Four screen the live consumption of illegal substances, again, commencing in educational context . But don't forget that Big Brother the tv show was borne out of Zimbardo's controversial prison experiment. Let us examine human behaviour, and thus we can understand, empathise and have no need to experience.

As Adrenalin junkies will admit, the rush of hormonal excesses from activity is a hedonistic pursuit. But if television continues down this path, we will have no need to jump from planes, as we can employ similar rushes from watching someone else do it.

So yes, I would say the death of a man on television is a likely milestone. But a milestone of a negative fashion, simply pointing us further down the line towards a "Matrix" like existence.

Nefarious Intent: Why Online Offender Registers are Wrong

I'm vehemently against 'Sarah's Law' as it is called in the UK. The premise is that parents can look up sex offenders and paedophiles in their neighbourhood to protect their children.

As the News of the World demonstrated very clearly in the beginning of the century, the data can be wrong. People suffer horrendously as a result.

Even when they are convicted sex offenders, many are tracked down and killed in basal style, one man stabbed to death in his caravan, another had his house set on fire.

And for some reason, in spite of this uncivilised response that runs on sensationalist headlines, the government has decided to roll out this 'law'.

Lessons Not Learned

When you consider two high profile child murders in the last decade, the application of this rule makes even less sense.

The Ian Huntley case provoked a knee jerk reaction to extend CRBs. However, Ian Huntley only had one conviction for burglary, and nothing on his record to indicate paedophillic behaviour.

Sarah Payne was killed by a paedophile with previous convictions, but she was abducted in her grandparent's area, and as a result the man convicted of her murder could not have been identified by her parents.

Therefore, the purpose of the legislation is defeated if it could not have prevented the deaths of these three girls.

Nefarious Intent

Having all that data out there, easily accessible, was bound to be used for alternative and dubious purposes soon enough.

Where the public dislike the use of data by public services for alternative purposes, they can, in theory, hold that company to account.

However, where it is a private corporation, the accountability is harder to apply.

As the Metro reports today, Match.com are now checking their online population against US sex offender registers.

The President says 'this should not create a false sense of security'. Security for whom?

Match.com cannot be prevented from accessing this data, indeed it is there for anyone to get.

Will we now see an aberition of human rights where offenders are denied credit cards, shopping deliveries, ebay accounts and more?

Where do we draw the line in persecuting those who have committed offences?

And how will any of this allow ex-offenders reintegrate into society and be rehabilitated?

Before we can condone holding information of innocent people, we must review the systems

While MP expenses are stealing the headlines with "cheque book journalism", I think the leak is potentially a well positioned distraction from the concepts of DNA Databases and ID Cards.

I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.

But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.

The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.

But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.

The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.

Big Brother Bites Back

The G20 Meltdown has become a beacon of light in dealing with brutal police powers.

But the reporting on mainstream channels has already become subject to being dumbed down. The BBC report "alleged attacks". Even if the police are found to have acted with reasonable force, this does not negate the fact that it was an assault. It would just be a justified assault instead of a criminal assault. But there is obvious journalistic disquiet at projecting such inferences, after all, it is not like there is video evidence. Oh, wait.

While it is all very well to say "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty.", I would suspect that the woman struck round the face had other things on her mind than memorising the 4, 5 or 6 digit number on the Officer's shoulder.

As a number of radio stations have commented, the police are now fully aware they are under far more scrutiny than ever before, with the advent of photographic and internet technology. This is a delightful form of "Big Brother" style vigilance biting back, and I commend it all the way.

Invasive or ridiculous?

While the highway code and PACE continue to grow to catch the mediocre and banal and turn it into crime, they have now introduced further pilots to catch drivers unaware.

I am really really amused by this.

Anyone seen driving while distracted - eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance - is filmed by the cameras.

Do they think drivers are so distracted as to not notice a a 12ft (3.6m) mast with a camera attached?

When they criminalise picking your nose while driving, something I see more frequently than anything else, I might get a bit pissy. But for now I am just going to laugh.